Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 11/2018

01-11-2018 | Genetics

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis versus prenatal diagnosis—decision-making among pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers

Authors: Lilach Marom Haham, Inbal Avrahami, Noam Domniz, Liat Ries-Levavi, Michal Berkenstadt, Raoul Orvieto, Yoram Cohen, Shai E. Elizur

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To detect which factors influence decision-making among pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers regarding the preferred mode of genetic diagnosis: IVF-PGT-M (in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic gene diseases), or CVS (chorionic villus sampling), or AC (amniocentesis) after spontaneous conception.

Methods

In Israel FMR1 premutation preconception genetic screening is offered, free of charge, to every woman in her reproductive years. FMR1 premutation carriers with ≥ 70 CGG repeats, or a history of FXS offspring, are offered IVF-PGT-M. This is a historical cohort study including all pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers who underwent prenatal diagnosis between the years 2011 and 2016 at a tertiary medical center. Data were collected from electronic charts and through phone interviews.

Results

One hundred seventy-five women with high-risk pregnancies who were offered IVF-PGT-M were evaluated. In 37 pregnancies (21%), the women decided to undergo IVF-PGT-M. Using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) statistical method including seven parameters, we found that previous termination of pregnancy due to FXS and advanced woman’s age were significantly associated with making the decision to undergo IVF-PGT-M. Previously failed IVF was the most significant parameter in a woman’s decision not to undergo IVF-PGT-M.

Conclusion

The most dominant factor affecting the decision of FMR1 premutation carriers to choose spontaneous conception with prenatal diagnosis versus IVF-PGT-M is a previous experience of failed IVF treatments. Women whose IVF treatments failed in the past tended to try to conceive naturally and later, during the course of the pregnancy, perform CVS or AC. Conversely, women who previously experienced a termination of pregnancy (TOP) due to an affected fetus, and older women, preferred to undergo IVF-PGT-M procedures.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wittenberger MD, Hagerman RJ, Sherman SL, McConkie-Rosell A, Welt CK, Rebar RW, et al. The FMR1 premutation and reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:456–65.CrossRef Wittenberger MD, Hagerman RJ, Sherman SL, McConkie-Rosell A, Welt CK, Rebar RW, et al. The FMR1 premutation and reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:456–65.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Nolin SL, Glicksman A, Ding X, et al. Fragile X analysis of 1112 natal samples from 1991 to 2010. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(10):925 931–2011.CrossRef Nolin SL, Glicksman A, Ding X, et al. Fragile X analysis of 1112 natal samples from 1991 to 2010. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(10):925 931–2011.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Tsafrir A, Altarescu G, Margalioth E, Brooks B, Renbaum P, Levy-Lahad E, et al. PGT-M for fragile X syndrome: ovarian function is the main determinant of success. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(10):2629–36.CrossRef Tsafrir A, Altarescu G, Margalioth E, Brooks B, Renbaum P, Levy-Lahad E, et al. PGT-M for fragile X syndrome: ovarian function is the main determinant of success. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(10):2629–36.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Jin P, Warren ST. Understanding the molecular basis of fragile X syndrome. Hum Mol Genet. 2000;9:901–8.CrossRef Jin P, Warren ST. Understanding the molecular basis of fragile X syndrome. Hum Mol Genet. 2000;9:901–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hoyos LR, Thakur M. Fragile X premutation in women: recognizing the health challenges beyond primary ovarian insufficiency. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(3):315–23.CrossRef Hoyos LR, Thakur M. Fragile X premutation in women: recognizing the health challenges beyond primary ovarian insufficiency. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(3):315–23.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Visootsak J, Warren ST, Anido A, Graham JM. Fragile X syndrome: an update for the primary pediatrician. Clin Pediatr. 2005;44:371–81.CrossRef Visootsak J, Warren ST, Anido A, Graham JM. Fragile X syndrome: an update for the primary pediatrician. Clin Pediatr. 2005;44:371–81.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Fu YH, Kuhl DP, Pizzuti A, et al. Variation of the CGG repeat at the fragile X site results in genetic instability: resolution of the Sherman paradox. Cell. 1991;67:1047–58.CrossRef Fu YH, Kuhl DP, Pizzuti A, et al. Variation of the CGG repeat at the fragile X site results in genetic instability: resolution of the Sherman paradox. Cell. 1991;67:1047–58.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Berkenstadt M, Ries-Levavi L, Cuckle H, Peleg L, Barkai G. Preconceptional and prenatal screening for fragile X syndrome: experience with 40,000 tests. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27(11):991–4.CrossRef Berkenstadt M, Ries-Levavi L, Cuckle H, Peleg L, Barkai G. Preconceptional and prenatal screening for fragile X syndrome: experience with 40,000 tests. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27(11):991–4.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sherman S, Pletcher BA, Driscoll DA. Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing. Genet Med. 2005;7:584–7.CrossRef Sherman S, Pletcher BA, Driscoll DA. Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing. Genet Med. 2005;7:584–7.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Spath MA, Feuth TB, Allen EG, Smits APT, Yntema HG, van Kessel AG, et al. Intra-individual stability over time of standardized anti-Mullerian hormone in FMR1 premutation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2185–91.CrossRef Spath MA, Feuth TB, Allen EG, Smits APT, Yntema HG, van Kessel AG, et al. Intra-individual stability over time of standardized anti-Mullerian hormone in FMR1 premutation carriers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2185–91.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rohr J, Allen EG, Charen K, Giles J, He W, Dominguez C, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone indicates early ovarian decline in fragile X mental retardation (FMR1) premutation carriers: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1220–5.CrossRef Rohr J, Allen EG, Charen K, Giles J, He W, Dominguez C, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone indicates early ovarian decline in fragile X mental retardation (FMR1) premutation carriers: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1220–5.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Welt CK, Smith PC, Taylor AE. Evidence of early ovarian aging in fragile X premutation carriers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:4569–74.CrossRef Welt CK, Smith PC, Taylor AE. Evidence of early ovarian aging in fragile X premutation carriers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:4569–74.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Martin JR, Arici A. Fragile X and reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:216–20.CrossRef Martin JR, Arici A. Fragile X and reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:216–20.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Fernández RM, Peciña A, Lozano-Arana MD, Sánchez B, García-Lozano JC, Borrego S, et al. Clinical and technical overview of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for fragile X syndrome: experience at the University Hospital Virgen del Rocio in Spain. Biomed Res Int. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/965839. Fernández RM, Peciña A, Lozano-Arana MD, Sánchez B, García-Lozano JC, Borrego S, et al. Clinical and technical overview of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for fragile X syndrome: experience at the University Hospital Virgen del Rocio in Spain. Biomed Res Int. 2015. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2015/​965839.
15.
go back to reference Feldman B, Aizer A, Brengauz M, Dotan K, Levron J, Schiff E, et al. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis – should we use ICSI for all? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(9):1179–83.CrossRef Feldman B, Aizer A, Brengauz M, Dotan K, Levron J, Schiff E, et al. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis – should we use ICSI for all? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(9):1179–83.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference M M, Naiman T, Yosef DB, Carmon A, Mey-Raz N, Amit A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for fragile X syndrome using multiplex nested PCR. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14(4):515–21.CrossRef M M, Naiman T, Yosef DB, Carmon A, Mey-Raz N, Amit A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for fragile X syndrome using multiplex nested PCR. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14(4):515–21.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation to in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.CrossRef Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation to in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Raspberry KA, Skinner D. Negotiating desires and options: how mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):992–8.CrossRef Raspberry KA, Skinner D. Negotiating desires and options: how mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):992–8.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S. On ambivalence and risk: reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology. 2000;34(2):283–304.CrossRef Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S. On ambivalence and risk: reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology. 2000;34(2):283–304.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lemke T. Disposition and determinism genetic diagnostics in risk society. Sociol Rev. 2004;52(4):550–66.CrossRef Lemke T. Disposition and determinism genetic diagnostics in risk society. Sociol Rev. 2004;52(4):550–66.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Belanger D. Indispensable sons: negotiating reproductive desires in rural Vietnam. Gend Place Cult. 2006;13(3):251–65.CrossRef Belanger D. Indispensable sons: negotiating reproductive desires in rural Vietnam. Gend Place Cult. 2006;13(3):251–65.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Xuncia M, Badenas C, Dominguez M, Rodriguez-Revenga L, Madrigal I, Jimenez L, et al. Fragile X syndrome prenatal diagnosis: prenatal attitudes and reproductive responses. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21(4):560–5.CrossRef Xuncia M, Badenas C, Dominguez M, Rodriguez-Revenga L, Madrigal I, Jimenez L, et al. Fragile X syndrome prenatal diagnosis: prenatal attitudes and reproductive responses. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21(4):560–5.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Tsafrir A, Altarescu G, Margalioth E, Brooks B, Renbaum P, Levy-Lahad E, et al. PGD for fragile X syndrome: ovarian function is the main determinant of success. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(10):2629–36.CrossRef Tsafrir A, Altarescu G, Margalioth E, Brooks B, Renbaum P, Levy-Lahad E, et al. PGD for fragile X syndrome: ovarian function is the main determinant of success. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(10):2629–36.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Man L, Lekovich J, Rosenwaks Z, Gerhardt J. Fragile X-associated diminished ovarian reserve and primary ovarian insufficiency from molecular mechanisms to clinical manifestations. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017;12(10):290.CrossRef Man L, Lekovich J, Rosenwaks Z, Gerhardt J. Fragile X-associated diminished ovarian reserve and primary ovarian insufficiency from molecular mechanisms to clinical manifestations. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017;12(10):290.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Elizur SE, Lebovitz O, Derech-Haim S, Dratviman-Storobinsky O, Feldman B, Dor J, et al. Elevated levels of FMR1 mRNA in granulosa cells are associated with low ovarian reserve in FMR1 premutation carriers. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105121.CrossRef Elizur SE, Lebovitz O, Derech-Haim S, Dratviman-Storobinsky O, Feldman B, Dor J, et al. Elevated levels of FMR1 mRNA in granulosa cells are associated with low ovarian reserve in FMR1 premutation carriers. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105121.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Elizur SE, Aslan D, Shulman A, Weisz B, Bider D, Dor J. Modified natural cycle using GnRH antagonist can be an optional treatment in poor responders undergoing IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(2):75–9.CrossRef Elizur SE, Aslan D, Shulman A, Weisz B, Bider D, Dor J. Modified natural cycle using GnRH antagonist can be an optional treatment in poor responders undergoing IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(2):75–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis versus prenatal diagnosis—decision-making among pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers
Authors
Lilach Marom Haham
Inbal Avrahami
Noam Domniz
Liat Ries-Levavi
Michal Berkenstadt
Raoul Orvieto
Yoram Cohen
Shai E. Elizur
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1293-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 11/2018 Go to the issue