Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Original Research

The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents’ Experiences

Authors: S. L. van der Steen, S. R. Riedijk, J. Verhagen-Visser, L. C. P. Govaerts, M. I. Srebniak, D. Van Opstal, M. Joosten, M. F. C. M. Knapen, A. Tibben, K. E. M. Diderich, R. J. H. Galjaard

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 6/2016

Abstract

Genomic microarray may detect susceptibility loci (SL) for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and epilepsy, with a yet unquantifiable risk for the fetus. The prenatal disclosure of susceptibility loci is a topic of much debate. Many health care professionals fear that reporting susceptibility loci may put a psychological burden on pregnant couples. It is our policy to disclose prenatal susceptibility loci as we recognize them as actionable for prospective parents. The aim of this report was to evaluate the psychological impact of disclosing a prenatal diagnosis of susceptibility loci. The psychological impact of disclosing susceptibility loci was evaluated in the first patients who received such results. Eight out of 15 women who had a susceptibility locus disclosed and four of their partners consented to share their experiences through a telephonic evaluation (n = 12). Follow-up time ranged from 3 to 15 months after their prenatal test result. The reporting of susceptibility loci was initially ‘shocking’ for five parents while the other seven felt ‘worried’. Ten out of 12 participants indicated they would like to be informed about the susceptibility locus again, two were unsure. Most had no enduring worries. Participants unanimously indicated that pregnant couples should have an individualized pre-test choice about susceptibility loci (non)disclosure. We observed no negative psychological impact with the prenatal diagnosis and disclosure of SL on participants. A key factor in mitigating parental anxiety with SL disclosure appears to be post-test genetic counseling. Our report confirms that pregnant women and their partners prefer an individualized choice regarding the scope of prenatal testing.

Ballif, B. C., Theisen, A., Coppinger, J., et al. (2008). Expanding the clinical phenotype of the 3q29 microdeletion syndrome and characterization of the reciprocal microduplication. Molecular Cytogenetics, 1, 8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bernhardt, B. A., Soucier, D., Hanson, K., Savage, M. S., Jackson, L., & Wapner, R. J. (2013). Women’s experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 139–145.CrossRefPubMed

Boormans, E. M., Birnie, E., Oepkes, D., Boekkooi, P. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Van Lith, J. M. (2010). Individualized choice in prenatal diagnosis: the impact of karyotyping and standalone rapid aneuploidy detection on quality of life. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30, 928–936.CrossRefPubMed

Brady, P.D., Delle Chiaie, B., Christenhusz, G., et al. (2013). A prospective study of the clinical utility of prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities and an exploration of a framework for reporting unclassified variants and risk factors. Genetics in Medicine.

Burnside, R. D., Pasion, R., Mikhail, F. M., et al. (2011). Microdeletion/microduplication of proximal 15q11.2 between BP1 and BP2: a susceptibility region for neurological dysfunction including developmental and language delay. Human Genetics, 130, 517–528.CrossRefPubMed

Cooper, G. M., Coe, B. P., Girirajan, S., et al. (2011). A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nature Genetics, 43, 838–846.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dababnah, S., & Parish, S.L. (2015). Feasibility of an empirically based program for parents of preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 25.

de Jong, A., Dondorp, W. J., Krumeich, A., Boonekamp, J., van Lith, J. M., & de Wert, G. M. (2013). The scope of prenatal diagnosis for women at increased risk for aneuploidies: views and preferences of professionals and potential users. Journal of Community Genetics, 4, 125–135.CrossRefPubMed

de Jong, A., Dondorp, W. J., Macville, M. V., de Die-Smulders, C. E., van Lith, J. M., & de Wert, G. M. (2014). Microarrays as a diagnostic tool in prenatal screening strategies: ethical reflection. Human Genetics, 133, 163–172.CrossRefPubMed

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Fiorentino, F., Caiazzo, F., Napolitano, S., et al. (2011). Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenatal Diagnosis, 31, 1270–1282.CrossRefPubMed

Firth, H.V. (1993). 22q11.2 Duplication.

Girirajan, S., Rosenfeld, J. A., Cooper, G. M., et al. (2010). A recurrent 16p12.1 microdeletion supports a two-hit model for severe developmental delay. Nature Genetics, 42, 203–209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Girirajan, S., Rosenfeld, J. A., Coe, B. P., et al. (2012). Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 1321–1331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Goobie, S., Knijnenburg, J., Fitzpatrick, D., et al. (2008). Molecular and clinical characterization of de novo and familial cases with microduplication 3q29: guidelines for copy number variation case reporting. Cytogenetic and Genome Research, 123, 65–78.CrossRefPubMed

Hillman, S.C., McMullan, D.J., Silcock, L., Maher, E.R., & Kilby, M.D. (2013). How does altering the resolution of chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal setting affect the rates of pathological and uncertain findings? The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

Kaminsky, E. B., Kaul, V., Paschall, J., et al. (2011). An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 777–784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lalor, J., Begley, C. M., & Galavan, E. (2009). Recasting hope: a process of adaptation following fetal anomaly diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 462–472.CrossRef

McGillivray, G., Rosenfeld, J. A., McKinlay Gardner, R. J., & Gillam, L. H. (2012). Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32, 389–395.CrossRefPubMed

Rigter, T., Henneman, L., Kristoffersson, U., et al. (2013). Reflecting on earlier experiences with unsolicited findings: points to consider for next-generation sequencing and informed consent in diagnostics. Human Mutation, 34, 1322–1328.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rosenfeld, J. A., Coe, B. P., Eichler, E. E., Cuckle, H., Phil, D., & Shaffer, L. G. (2013). Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 478–481.

Srebniak, M.I. (2013). Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification. European Journal of Human Genetics.

Srebniak, M. I., Mout, L., Van Opstal, D., & Galjaard, R. J. (2013). 0.5 Mb array as a first-line prenatal cytogenetic test in cases without ultrasound abnormalities and its implementation in clinical practice. Human Mutation, 34, 1298–1303.CrossRefPubMed

Srebniak, M. I., Diderich, K. E., Govaerts, L. C., et al. (2014). Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22, 856–858.CrossRefPubMed

Srebniak, M.I., Diderich, K., Joosten, M., et al. (2015). Prenatal SNP array testing in 1000 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: causative, unexpected and susceptibility CNVs. Manuscript in preparation.

Stark, Z., Gillam, L., Walker, S. P., & McGillivray, G. (2013). Ethical controversies in prenatal microarray. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 25, 133–137.CrossRef

Statham, H., Solomou, W., & Chitty, L. (2000). Prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormality: psychological effects on women in low-risk pregnancies. Baillière’s Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 14, 731–747.CrossRef

van der Steen, S.L., Diderich, K.E., Riedijk, S.R. et al. (2014). Pregnant couples at increased risk for common aneuploidies choose maximal information from invasive genetic testing. Clinical Genetics.

Van Opstal, D., de Vries, F., Govaerts, L., et al. (2015). Benefits and burdens of using a SNP array in pregnancies at increased risk for the common aneuploidies. Human Mutation, 36, 319–326.CrossRefPubMed

Veltman, J. A., & Brunner, H. G. (2010). Understanding variable expressivity in microdeletion syndromes. Nature Genetics, 42, 192–193.CrossRefPubMed

Vetro, A., Bouman, K., Hastings, R., et al. (2012). The introduction of arrays in prenatal diagnosis: a special challenge. Human Mutation, 33, 923–929.CrossRefPubMed

Wapner, R., Jackson, L. (2008). Chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis: a prospective comparison with conventional cytogenetics. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, S8, 15–14.

Wapner, R. J., Martin, C. L., Levy, B., et al. (2012). Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 2175–2184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wolf, S. M., Paradise, J., & Caga-anan, C. (2008). The law of incidental findings in human subjects research: establishing researchers’ duties. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36, 361–383. 214.CrossRef

Title: The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents’ Experiences
Authors: S. L. van der Steen
S. R. Riedijk
J. Verhagen-Visser
L. C. P. Govaerts
M. I. Srebniak
D. Van Opstal
M. Joosten
M. F. C. M. Knapen
A. Tibben
K. E. M. Diderich
R. J. H. Galjaard
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9960-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents’ Experiences

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Family Communication in Inherited Cardiovascular Conditions in Ireland

Experience of Social Media Support Group for BRCA Carriers

DECIDE: a Decision Support Tool to Facilitate Parents’ Choices Regarding Genome-Wide Sequencing

Bicuspid Aortic Valve: a Review with Recommendations for Genetic Counseling

Erratum to: Using ApoE Genotyping to Promote Healthy Lifestyles in Finland – Psychological Impacts: Randomized Controlled Trial

The Relationship between the Supervision Role and Compassion Fatigue and Burnout in Genetic Counseling