Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 4/2009

01-12-2009

Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Authors: Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Susan T. Vadaparampil, Lindsey M. King, Cheryl A. Miree, Sue Friedman

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 4/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Members of families affected by hereditary cancer are often concerned about passing on risk to offspring. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure performed to identify embryos that inherit mutations placing them at risk for hereditary conditions. Little is known about attitudes toward the use of this technology among individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We sought to determine high risk women’s attitudes. This study is a qualitative examination of comments from women who participated in an online survey regarding knowledge and attitudes of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among individuals affected by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. More than half the respondents held less favorable attitudes about the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for both themselves and others. However, among the women who felt favorable about its usage, the majority said it became a new option for them to pursue parenthood whereas previously they had opted to not have a biological child. The high percentage of respondents who have never heard of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and who were in favor of this technology for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer indicates the need for educational campaigns to increase awareness and provide information about the procedure, access and affordability. Further research is needed to determine how this population would like this information presented to them and how best to instruct health care professionals to present this topic to women who do not know to ask about it.
Literature
4.
go back to reference Menon U, Harper J, Sharma A, Fraser L, Burnell M, ElMasry K, Rodeck C, Jacobs I (2007) Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 22(6):1573–1577. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem055 CrossRefPubMed Menon U, Harper J, Sharma A, Fraser L, Burnell M, ElMasry K, Rodeck C, Jacobs I (2007) Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 22(6):1573–1577. doi:10.​1093/​humrep/​dem055 CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Staton AD, Kurian AW, Cobb K, Mills MA, Ford JM (2007) Cancer risk reduction and reproductive concerns in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Fam Cancer 7:179–186CrossRefPubMed Staton AD, Kurian AW, Cobb K, Mills MA, Ford JM (2007) Cancer risk reduction and reproductive concerns in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Fam Cancer 7:179–186CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Wilson C et al (2009) Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 91:2361–2368CrossRefPubMed Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Wilson C et al (2009) Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 91:2361–2368CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Lancaster JM, Wiseman RW, Berchuck A (1995) An inevitable dilemma: prenatal testing mutations in the BRCA1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. Obstet Gynecol 87:306–309CrossRef Lancaster JM, Wiseman RW, Berchuck A (1995) An inevitable dilemma: prenatal testing mutations in the BRCA1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. Obstet Gynecol 87:306–309CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Smith KR, Ellington L, Chan AY, Croyle RT, Botkin JR (2004) Fertility intentions following testing for a BRCA1 gene mutation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(5):733–740PubMed Smith KR, Ellington L, Chan AY, Croyle RT, Botkin JR (2004) Fertility intentions following testing for a BRCA1 gene mutation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(5):733–740PubMed
13.
go back to reference Ao A, Wells D, Handyside AJ, Winston RML, Delhanty JDA (1998) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited cancer: familial adenomatous polyposis coli. Genetics 15(3):140–144 Ao A, Wells D, Handyside AJ, Winston RML, Delhanty JDA (1998) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited cancer: familial adenomatous polyposis coli. Genetics 15(3):140–144
15.
go back to reference Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RML (1990) Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 344:768–770CrossRefPubMed Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RML (1990) Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 344:768–770CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Verlinsky Y, Ginsburg N, Lifchez A, Valle J, Moise J, Strom C (1990) Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 5:826–829PubMed Verlinsky Y, Ginsburg N, Lifchez A, Valle J, Moise J, Strom C (1990) Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 5:826–829PubMed
18.
go back to reference Zitner A (2002) The nation: cloning receives a makeover politics: nuances of language helped reframe the debate and derail an all-out ban in congress. LA Times, p A1 Zitner A (2002) The nation: cloning receives a makeover politics: nuances of language helped reframe the debate and derail an all-out ban in congress. LA Times, p A1
20.
go back to reference Testart J, Sele B (1995) Towards an efficient medical eugenics: is the desirable always the feasible? Hum Reprod 10(12):3086–3090PubMed Testart J, Sele B (1995) Towards an efficient medical eugenics: is the desirable always the feasible? Hum Reprod 10(12):3086–3090PubMed
22.
go back to reference Simpson JL (2001) Celebrating preimplantation genetic diagnosis of p53 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 3:2–3PubMedCrossRef Simpson JL (2001) Celebrating preimplantation genetic diagnosis of p53 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 3:2–3PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hudson K (2002) Public awareness and attitudes about reproductive genetic technology. Genetics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC Hudson K (2002) Public awareness and attitudes about reproductive genetic technology. Genetics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC
27.
go back to reference Guba EG (1978) Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. University of California, Los Angeles Guba EG (1978) Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. University of California, Los Angeles
28.
go back to reference Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications
29.
go back to reference Dye JF, Schatz IM, Rosenberg BA, Coleman ST (2000) Constant comparison method: a kaleidoscope of data. Qual Rep 4:1–2 Dye JF, Schatz IM, Rosenberg BA, Coleman ST (2000) Constant comparison method: a kaleidoscope of data. Qual Rep 4:1–2
30.
go back to reference Shahine LK, Kuppermann M, Davis G, Creasman J, Cedars MI (2008) Patient willingness to participate in a clinical trial with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 89(4):879–884CrossRefPubMed Shahine LK, Kuppermann M, Davis G, Creasman J, Cedars MI (2008) Patient willingness to participate in a clinical trial with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 89(4):879–884CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K (2005) PGD patients’ and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online 11:486–496PubMed Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K (2005) PGD patients’ and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online 11:486–496PubMed
33.
go back to reference Greendale K, Pyeritz RE (2001) Empowering primary care health professionals in medical genetics: How soon? How fast? How far? Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 106(3):223–232. doi:10.1002/ajmg.10010 CrossRef Greendale K, Pyeritz RE (2001) Empowering primary care health professionals in medical genetics: How soon? How fast? How far? Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 106(3):223–232. doi:10.​1002/​ajmg.​10010 CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Wonderlick AL, Fine BA (1997) Knowledge of breast cancer genetics among breast cancer patients and first-degree relatives of affected individuals. J Genet Couns 6(2):111–130CrossRef Wonderlick AL, Fine BA (1997) Knowledge of breast cancer genetics among breast cancer patients and first-degree relatives of affected individuals. J Genet Couns 6(2):111–130CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Donelle L, Loffman-Goetz L, Clarke JN (2004) Portrayal of genetic risk for breast cancer. Women Health 49(4):93–111 Donelle L, Loffman-Goetz L, Clarke JN (2004) Portrayal of genetic risk for breast cancer. Women Health 49(4):93–111
Metadata
Title
Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
Authors
Gwendolyn P. Quinn
Susan T. Vadaparampil
Lindsey M. King
Cheryl A. Miree
Sue Friedman
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9263-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

Familial Cancer 4/2009 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine