A cross-country comparison of pregnant women's decision-making and perspectives when opting for non-invasive prenatal testing in the Netherlands and Belgium.

BACKGROUND: The Netherlands and Belgium have been among the first countries to offer non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier screening test. Despite similarities, differences exist in counseling modalities and test uptake. This study explored decision-making and perspectives of pregnant women who opted for NIPT in both countries. METHODS: A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women in the Netherlands (NL) (n = 587) and Belgium (BE) (n = 444) opting for NIPT, including measures on informed choice, personal and societal perspectives on trisomy 21, 18 and 13 and pregnancy termination. RESULTS: Differences between Dutch and Belgian women were shown in the level of informed choice (NL: 83% vs. BE: 59%, p < 0.001), intention to terminate the pregnancy in case of confirmed trisomy 21 (NL: 51% vs. BE: 62%, p = 0.003) and trisomy 13/18 (NL: 80% vs. BE: 73%, p = 0.020). More Belgian women considered trisomy 21 a severe condition (NL: 64% vs. BE: 81%, p < 0.001). Belgian women more frequently indicated that they believed parents are judged for having a child with trisomy 21 (BE: 42% vs. NL: 16%, p < 0.001) and were less positive about quality of care and support for children with trisomy 21 (BE: 23% vs. NL: 62%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Differences in women's decision-making regarding NIPT and the conditions screened for may be influenced by counseling aspects and country-specific societal and cultural contexts.

Breast cancer in pregnancy: recommendations of an international consensus meeting.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance for clinicians about the diagnosis, staging and treatment of breast cancer occurring during an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy. METHODS: An international expert Panel convened to address a series of questions identified by a literature review and personal experience. Issues relating to the diagnosis and management of breast cancer after delivery were outside the scope. RESULTS: There is a paucity of large and/or randomized studies. Based on cohort studies, case series and case reports, the recommendations represent the best available evidence, albeit of a lower grade than is optimal. RECOMMENDATIONS: In most circumstances, serious consideration should be given to the option of treating breast cancer whilst continuing with the pregnancy. Each woman should ideally be referred to a centre with sufficient expertise, given a clear explanation of treatment options. Most diagnostic and staging examinations can be performed adequately and safely during pregnancy. Treatment should however be adapted to the clinical presentation and the trimester of the pregnancy: surgery can be performed during all trimesters of pregnancy; radiotherapy can be considered during the first and second trimester but should be postponed during the third trimester; and standard chemotherapies can be used during the second and third trimester. Since neonatal morbidity mainly appears to be related to prematurity, delivery should not be induced before 37 weeks, if at all possible. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of breast cancer in pregnancy should be executed by experienced specialists in a multidisciplinary setting and should adhere as closely as possible to standard protocols.