Attitudes toward 'Disorders of Sex Development' nomenclature among physicians, genetic counselors, and mental health clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: In 2006, nomenclature referencing atypical sex development (i.e., 'intersex') was updated, and the term disorder of sex development (DSD) was formally introduced. Clinicians, patients, and parents, however, have not universally accepted the new terminology, and some continue to use different nomenclature. This inconsistency in terminology can lead to confusion among clinicians and patients, affect clinician-patient relationships, and interfere with the recommended multidisciplinary model for DSD care. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to (1) evaluate frequency of use and comfort with specific DSD terminology, (2) assess why clinicians are not using specific terms, and (3) determine what terms are being heard within the medical community and by the public in a sample of physicians, genetic counselors, and licensed mental health clinicians. STUDY DESIGN: A Web-based survey assessing the use of DSD terminology was distributed to endocrinologists, urologists, genetic counselors, and mental health clinicians. The survey assessed frequency of use and comfort with specific terms, negative experiences related to specific nomenclature use, and the context in which terms are used (e.g. case conference, literature, patient/parents, and media). A qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was conducted to characterize reasons for avoiding specific terms. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 286 clinicians. There were significant differences between specialties in comfort and frequency of use of specific terms, and significant differences were based on clinician gender, patient volume, length of time in practice, and practice setting. The study results also showed a difference in the nomenclature used within the medical community versus the media. DISCUSSION: Study findings are consistent with previous research exploring medical professionals' use of the new term: disorder of sex development. However, there continues to be inconsistency in the uptake of this new terminology. Words that have been purposed in the literature to replace disorder, such as difference and variation, would be accepted by clinicians, and the word divergent would not. This study expands on the existing literature documenting high uptake of disorder of sex development nomenclature among medical professionals. In addition, this study demonstrates that the most common diagnostic terms used by the medical community are not the same terms being presented to the public by the media. CONCLUSION: Medical professionals have varying preferences for terminology use when describing DSD, which can affect patient care. These results can be used in the future to compare with what patients and advocates prefer to develop a more universally accepted approach to nomenclature.

A reappraisal of amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein measurement at the time of genetic amniocentesis and midtrimester ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contemporary utility of amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein measurement as a complementary test for fetal abnormalities at the time of invasive genetic testing. METHODS: A review of amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein test results was conducted to determine the frequency with which elevated alpha-fetoprotein values added independent diagnostic information and altered clinical management. Amniotic fluid specimens processed for alpha-fetoprotein between 1995 and 1998 were included. Elevated alpha-fetoprotein cases were classified as either incidental to the fetal abnormality diagnosed or central to the identification of a fetal anomaly on the basis of whether an ultrasonographic examination had already identified the anomaly before amniocentesis. The costs associated with alpha-fetoprotein testing were used to estimate the expenditure per pregnancy in which elevated alpha-fetoprotein values would add discriminatory diagnostic value. A hypothetical national cost model was constructed to explore the utility of selective rather than routine amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein measurement. RESULTS: Eighty-two (3%) of 2769 amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein values were elevated. In only 1 instance was the elevated result found to be partially discriminatory (e.g., an established diagnosis of microcephaly with an associated small encephalocele identified after the elevated amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein value prompted repeated ultrasonographic assessment). Sixty-one other neural tube defects were detected by ultrasonography alone (myelomeningocele, n = 28; anencephaly, n = 24; and encephalocele, n = 9). Thus, an elevated alpha-fetoprotein result added diagnostic precision in only 1 (0.036%) of 2769 cases. Cost estimates suggested that routine amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein assessment resulted in a $219,000 expenditure per informative case. CONCLUSIONS: Routine measurement of amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein during amniocentesis may not be warranted in centers with expertise in targeted ultrasonographic imaging.

Midtrimester amniocentesis. Influence of operator caseload on sampling efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of operator caseload on the sampling efficiency for early and standard, midtrimester amniocentesis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective ascertainment of genetic amniocenteses performed during 36 months, grouped into early (13-14 weeks' gestation) and standard procedures (15-20 weeks' gestation). Details of each amniocentesis were recorded immediately after sampling, and pregnancy outcomes were retrieved via questionnaires completed by the delivering physician. Sampling efficiency was evaluated separately in the early and standard cohorts in relation to operator caseload. RESULTS: In total, 193 and 707 patients underwent early and standard amniocentesis, respectively. Forty of 46 physician-operators performed < 50 total procedures during the study interval (group A). When compared to operators performing > or = 50 cases (group B, n = 6), a higher rate of single-pass success was noted among group B physicians for both early and standard procedures (A vs. B, early: 40/45 vs. 145/148, P = .018; standard: 243/295 vs. 384/412, P < .0001). Logistic regression confirmed an independent effect of physician caseload on sampling efficiency and a significant interaction between physician caseload and simultaneous ultrasound guidance in predicting single-attempt success. CONCLUSION: Operator caseload directly influenced sampling efficiency for both early and standard, midtrimester amniocentesis.

Mosaic trisomy 16 ascertained through amniocentesis: evaluation of 11 new cases.

Trisomy 16, once thought to result uniformly in early pregnancy loss, has been detected in chorionic villus samples (CVS) from on-going pregnancies and was initially ascribed to a second, nonviable pregnancy. Prenatally detected trisomy 16 in CVS and its resolution to disomy has led to the reexamination of the viability of trisomy 16. This study evaluates 11 cases of mosaic trisomy 16 detected through second trimester amniocentesis. In 9 of the 11 cases, amniocenteses were performed in women under the age of 35 because of abnormal levels of maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (MSAFP) or maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin (MShCG). The other two amniocenteses were performed for advanced maternal age. Five of the 11 pregnancies resulted in liveborn infants, and six pregnancies were electively terminated. The liveborn infants all had some combination of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), congenital heart defects (CHD), or minor anomalies. Two of them died neonatally because of complications of severe congenital heart defects. The three surviving children have variable growth retardation, developmental delay, congenital anomalies, and/or minor anomalies. In the terminated pregnancies, the four fetuses evaluated by ultrasound or autopsy demonstrated various congenital anomalies and/or IUGR. Cytogenetic and fluorescent in situ hybridization studies identified true mosaicism in 5 of 10 cases examined, although the abnormal cell line was never seen in more than 1% of cultured lymphocytes. Placental mosaicism was seen in all placentas examined and was associated with IUGR in four of seven cases. Maternal uniparental disomy was identified in three cases. Mosaic trisomy 16 detected through amniocentesis is not a benign finding but associated with a high risk of abnormal outcome, most commonly IUGR, CHD, developmental delay, and minor anomalies. The various outcomes may reflect the diversity of mechanisms involved in the resolution of this abnormality. As 80% of these patients were ascertained because of the presence of abnormal levels of MSAFP or MShCG, the increased use of maternal serum screening should bring more such cases to clinical attention.