Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 4/2019

01-04-2019 | Fertility | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes

Authors: Nigel Pereira, Michelle Wood, Emerly Luong, Allison Briggs, Michael Galloway, Rose A. Maxwell, Steven R. Lindheim

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Expanded genetic carrier screening (ECS) is an important part of gynecological practice and preconception planning. We evaluated the awareness and attitudes among women regarding ECS and factors that may influence decision-making in a family planning context.

Methods

A 32-question survey in an academic university practice was given to 521 women who were either currently pregnant (n = 108), undergoing gynecologic care who were considering future fertility (n = 308), and considering or receiving fertility treatment (n = 105). Data are reported descriptively.

Results

Forty-seven percent (n = 246) of patients were aware of ECS. Though most reported feeling positive or neutral towards ECS, 51% (n = 263) reported no desire for testing. Fifty-eight percent (n = 303) felt it beneficial to know their carrier status, and 55% (n = 257) said it was their responsibility to undergo testing. Those considering future fertility were found to have a more positive attitude towards ECS (51.4%) than those considering or receiving fertility treatment (34%). For positive carriers of a genetic disorder, 228 (49%) of patients would proceed with having their partner screened, 58 (13%) would undergo prenatal screening only and 12 (2.6%) would continue with vitro fertilization (IVF). Related to cost for ECS, 53.5% (n = 191) would be willing to pay at least $50–100 for testing, while 29% (n = 146) would not pay anything out of pocket.

Conclusions

Despite patients’ beliefs that it would be beneficial and their responsibility to undergo carrier status testing, the majority reported no desire for ECS and many were unwilling to pay out of pocket. Further education is necessary to reconcile the gap between technology and patient decision-making.
Literature
1.
2.
Kaback MM. Population-based genetic screening for reproductive counseling: the Tay-Sachs disease model. Eur J Pediatr. 2000;159(Suppl 3):S192–5.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Cousens NE, Gaff CL, Metcalfe SA, Delatycki MB. Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(10):1077–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Abolghasemi H, Amid A, Zeinali S, Radfar MH, Eshghi P, Rahiminejad MS, et al. Thalassemia in Iran: epidemiology, prevention, and management. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2007;29(4):233–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Yong KN, Wadsworth D, Langlois S, Yong SL, Wilson RD. Thalassemia carrier screening and prenatal diagnosis among the British Columbia (Canada) population of Chinese descent. Clin Genet. 1999;55(1):20–5.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Genetics Co. Committee opinion no. 691: carrier screening for genetic conditions. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(3):e41–55.CrossRef
8.
9.
Bell CJ, Dinwiddie DL, Miller NA, Hateley SL, Ganusova EE, Mudge J, et al. Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(65):65ra4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Kingsmore S. Comprehensive carrier screening and molecular diagnostic testing for recessive childhood diseases. PLoS Curr. 2012:e4f9877ab8ffa9.
11.
Tanner AK, Valencia CA, Rhodenizer D, Espirages M, Da Silva C, Borsuk L, et al. Development and performance of a comprehensive targeted sequencing assay for pan-ethnic screening of carrier status. J Mol Diagn. 2014;16(3):350–60.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Janssens S, Chokoshvili D, Vears D, De Paepe A, Borry P. Attitudes of European geneticists regarding expanded carrier screening. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2017;46(1):63–71.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lau TK. Obstetricians should get ready for expanded carrier screening. BJOG. 2016;123(Suppl 3):36–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dungan J. Expanded carrier screening: what the reproductive endocrinologist needs to know. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(2):183–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ekstrand Ragnar M, Tydén T, Kihlbom U, Larsson M. Swedish parents’ interest in preconception genetic carrier screening. Ups J Med Sci. 2016:1–6.
16.
Borry P, Henneman L, Lakeman P, ten Kate LP, Cornel MC, Howard HC. Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(5):972–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Holtkamp KCA, Mathijssen IB, Lakeman P, van Maarle MC, Dondorp WJ, Henneman L, et al. Factors for successful implementation of population-based expanded carrier screening: learning from existing initiatives. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27(2):372–7.
18.
De Wert GM, Dondorp WJ, Knoppers BM. Preconception care and genetic risk: ethical issues. J Community Genet. 2012;3(3):221–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T, Brooks S, Linn A, Kaphingst KA, et al. Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(3):261–5.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Shiroff JJ, Nemeth LS. Public perceptions of recessive carrier testing in the preconception and prenatal periods. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2015;44(6):717–25.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Clift KE, Halverson CM, Fiksdal AS, Kumbamu A, Sharp RR, McCormick JB. Patients’ views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing. Appl Transl Genom. 2015;4:38–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Schneider JL, Goddard KA, Davis J, Wilfond B, Kauffman TL, Reiss JA, et al. “Is it worth knowing?” focus group participants’ perceived utility of genomic preconception carrier screening. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(1):135–45.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kraft SA, McMullen CK, Porter KM, Kauffman TL, Davis JV, Schneider JL, et al. Patient perspectives on the use of categories of conditions for decision making about genomic carrier screening results. Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176(2):376–85.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Bonte P, Pennings G, Sterckx S. Is there a moral obligation to conceive children under the best possible conditions? A preliminary framework for identifying the preconception responsibilities of potential parents. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Gilmore MJ, Schneider J, Davis JV, Kauffman TL, Leo MC, Bergen K, et al. Reasons for declining preconception expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(5):971–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Van Der Wal G. Public attitudes toward genetic testing: perceived benefits and objections. Genet Test. 2006;10(2):139–45.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Briggs A, Nouri PK, Galloway M, O'Leary K, Pereira N, Lindheim SR. Expanded carrier screening: a current survey of physician utilization and attitudes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(9):1631–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Modra LJ, Massie RJ, Delatycki MB. Ethical considerations in choosing a model for population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Med J Aust. 2010;193(3):157–60.PubMed
30.
Poppelaars FA, Cornel MC, Ten Kate LP. Current practice and future interest of GPs and prospective parents in pre-conception care in the Netherlands. Fam Pract. 2004;21(3):307–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Robinson JO, Carroll TM, Feuerman LZ, Perry DL, Hoffman-Andrews L, Walsh RC, et al. Participants and study Decliners’ perspectives about the risks of participating in a clinical trial of whole genome sequencing. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11(1):21–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Chen X, Sanfilippo CJ, Nagiel A, Hosseini H, Mitchell D, McCannel CA, et al. Early detection of retinal hemangioblastomas in Von Hippel-Lindau disease using ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography. Retina. 2018;38(4):748–54.CrossRefPubMed
34.
McClaren BJ, Delatycki MB, Collins V, Metcalfe SA, Aitken M. “It is not in my world”: an exploration of attitudes and influences associated with cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16(4):435–44.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes
Authors
Nigel Pereira
Michelle Wood
Emerly Luong
Allison Briggs
Michael Galloway
Rose A. Maxwell
Steven R. Lindheim
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Keyword
Fertility
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01414-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 4/2019 Go to the issue

Commentary

Platelet-rich plasma or blood-derived products to improve endometrial receptivity?

Genetics

Unbalanced X;9 translocation in an infertile male with de novo duplication Xp22.31p22.33

Genetics

PEX10, SIRPA-SIRPG, and SOX5 gene polymorphisms are strongly associated with nonobstructive azoospermia susceptibility

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Early detection of cryostorage tank failure using a weight-based monitoring system

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Artificial intelligence and machine learning for human reproduction and embryology presented at ASRM and ESHRE 2018

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Ethnical and sociocultural differences causing infertility are poorly understood—insights from the Arabian perspective