Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 139-145

  Bernhardt, Barbara A ^a   Soucier, Danielle ^a   Hanson, Karen ^b   Savage, Melissa S ^b   Jackson, Laird ^c   Wapner, Ronald J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

^c DREXEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

genetic counseling; microarray testing; prenatal diagnosis; qualitative research

Indexed keywords

ABNORMAL LABORATORY RESULT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; FETUS KARYOTYPING; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PILOT STUDY; PRENATAL SCREENING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK FACTOR; TELECONSULTATION; UNCERTAINTY;

ADULT; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; PILOT PROJECTS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 84873547792     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.113     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Manning M, Hudgins L. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med 2010;12:742-745.
2. Committee on Genetics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 446: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization in Prenatal Diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1161-1163.
3. Novelli A, Grati FR, Ballarati L, et al. Microarray application in prenatal diagnosis: a position statement from the cytogenetics working group of the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU), November 2011. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:384-388.
4. Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, Shih JC, Lin TH, Su YN. Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies. BJOG 2012;119:614-625.
5. Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Rosenfeld JA, et al. Referral patterns for microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:344-350.
6. Wapner RJ for the Prenatal Microarray NICHD Study Group. A multicenter, prospective, masked comparison of chromosomal microarray with standard karyotyping for routine and high risk prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:S2.
7. Lippman A. Prenatal genetic testing and geneticization: mother matters for all. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8(suppl 1):175-188.
8. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. The travesty of choosing after positive prenatal diagnosis. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2005;34:307-318.
9. Darilek S, Ward P, Pursley A, et al. Pre-and postnatal genetic testing by arraycomparative genomic hybridization: genetic counseling perspectives. Genet Med 2008;10:13-18.
10. Coppinger J, Alliman S, Lamb AN, Torchia BS, Bejjani BA, Shaffer LG. Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:1156-1166.
11. Zuffardi O, Vetro A, Brady P, Vermeesch J. Array technology in prenatal diagnosis. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;16:94-98.
12. Lichtenbelt KD, Knoers NV, Schuring-Blom GH. From karyotyping to array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis. Cytogenet Genome Res 2011;135:241-250.
13. McGillivray G, Rosenfeld JA, McKinlay Gardner RJ, Gillam LH. Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:389-395.
14. Kenen RH. The at-risk health status and technology: a diagnostic invitation and the 'gift' of knowing. Soc Sci Med 1996;42:1545-1553.
15. Marteau TM, Dormandy E. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing? Am J Med Genet 2001;106:185-190.
16. Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus. New York: Routledge, 1999.
17. Sandelowski M, Jones LC. Healing fictions': stories of choosing in the aftermath of the detection of fetal anomalies. Soc Sci Med 1996;42:353-361.
18. Lalor J, Begley CM, Galavan E. Recasting Hope: a process of adaptation following fetal anomaly diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:462-472.
19. Statham H, Solomou W, Chitty L. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormality: psychological effects on women in low-risk pregnancies. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14:731-747.
20. Howard ED. Family-centered care in the context of fetal abnormality. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2006;20:237-242.
21. Sommerseth E, Sundby J. Women's experiences when ultrasound examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester. Women Birth 2010;23: 111-116.
22. Van den Veyver IB, Patel A, Shaw CA, et al. Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:29-39.
23. Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S, et al. Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:1270-1282.
24. Hickerton CL, Aitken M, Hodgson J, Delatycki MB. "Did you find that out in time?": new life trajectories of parents who choose to continue a pregnancy where a genetic disorder is diagnosed or likely. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:373-383.
25. Redlinger-Grosse K, Bernhardt BA, Berg K, Muenke M, Biesecker BB. The decision to continue: the experiences and needs of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of holoprosencephaly. Am J Med Genet 2002;112:369-378.
26. Tluczek A, Chevalier McKechnie A, Lynam PA. When the cystic fibrosis label does not fit: a modified uncertainty theory. Qual Health Res 2010; 20:209-223.
27. DeLuca JM, Kearney MH, Norton SA, Arnold GL. Parents' experiences of expanded newborn screening evaluations. Pediatrics 2011;128:53-61.
28. Reiff M, Bernhardt BA, Mulchandani S, et al. "What does it mean?": uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing. Genet Med 2012;14:250-258.
29. Kleinveld JH, Ten Kate LP, van den Berg M, van Vugt JM, Timmermans DR. Does informed decision making influence psychological outcomes after receiving a positive screening outcome? Prenat Diagn 2009;29:271-273.
30. Farrell RM, Dolgin N, Flocke SA, Winbush V, Mercer MB, Simon C. Risk and uncertainty: shifting decision making for aneuploidy screening to the first trimester of pregnancy. Genet Med 2011;13:429-436.
31. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB, Castañeda H. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: does clinical information inform patient decision-making? Patient Educ Couns 2005;56:302-312.
32. Fisher J. Supporting patients after disclosure of abnormal first trimester screening results. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2012;24:109-113.
33. Farrelly E, Cho MK, Erby L, Roter D, Stenzel A, Ormond K. Genetic Counseling for Prenatal Testing: Where is the Discussion About Disability? J Genet Couns 2012; e-pub ahead of print 2 February 2012.
34. Parens E, Asch A. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2003;9:40-47.
35. Bernhardt BA, Rushton CH, Carrese J, Pyeritz RE, Kolodner K, Geller G. Distress and burnout among genetic service providers. Genet Med 2009;11:527-535.
36. Bernhardt BA, Silver R, Rushton CH, Micco E, Geller G. What keeps you up at night? Genetics professionals' distressing experiences in patient care. Genet Med 2010;12:289-297.
37. Riggs ER, Jackson L, Miller DT, Van Vooren S. Phenotypic information in genomic variant databases enhances clinical care and research: the International Standards for Cytogenomic Arrays Consortium experience. Hum Mutat 2012;33:787-796.
38. Savage MS, Mourad MJ, Wapner RJ. Evolving applications of microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2011;23:103-108.
39. Wapner RJ, Driscoll DA, Simpson JL. Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:396-400.