To what extent do decision aids for prenatal screening and diagnosis address involvement of partners in decision-making? - An environmental scan.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous decision aids (DAs) have been developed to inform pregnant people about prenatal screening as the decision whether or not to accept the prenatal screening offer may be difficult. Currently, little is known about the role of the decisional partner of the pregnant people in this decision-making process and to what extent DAs involve and engage the partner. METHODS: A broad search was conducted to identify publicly available DAs in English and/or Dutch regarding prenatal screening and diagnosis. These DAs were analysed on aspects of partner involvement. RESULTS: Ten of the 19 identified DAs (52.6%) contained at least one aspect of partner involvement. Several DAs acknowledged that both partners should be involved in the decision (n = 7). The content that was least likely to contain aspects of partner involvement in the DA was value clarification content (n = 2) and only one DA contained content with plural addressing. CONCLUSION: Just over half of the included DAs included some aspect(s) of partner involvement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: More research is needed to determine to what extent, and how, the partner should be involved in the decision-making process as expectant people consider the input of their partner as important.

Hereditary diseases and child wish: exploring motives, considerations, and the (joint) decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples.

Couples who are at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring may face difficult challenges regarding reproductive decision-making. Deciding if, and how, to purse their child wish can be a demanding process. This study aims to describe the reproductive joint decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples. A qualitative study was conducted with 16 couples (N=31) at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring and who received genetic counseling. Most couples were not aware of all available reproductive options in the Netherlands. A variety of motives was reported with almost all couples expressing a preference towards a reproductive option in which the child is genetically related to both parents. Only a few couples considered other options such as the use of donor gametes, adoption, and foster parenting. All couples indicated that they had multiple conversations to reach a mutually supported reproductive decision. Several carriers reported feelings of guilt and in some couples, the woman appeared to have a greater impact in the decision-making process as she should carry a pregnancy and should undergo medical treatments. This study provides insight in the extensive decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples and the role of both partners in this process. These findings can guide the development of genetic counseling (e.g., increase awareness of available reproductive options) and decision support for these couples.

Surgical management for isolated macrodactyly in an adult PIK3CA mutant.

Isolated macrodactyly in adults caused by mosaic pattern PIK3CA mutation can result in significant functional impairment and psychological burden. Due to the rarity of this condition there are no clear treatment guidelines, and those few available are focused on paediatric cases. Reports on surgical management of isolated macrodactyly in adults are lacking. We present here the surgical management through partial amputation of enlarged rays of the right hand in an individual affected by low-grade mosaic PIK3CA mutation.

Motives and considerations regarding PGT in couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality: a qualitative exploration.

PURPOSE: This study aims to describe the motives and considerations of couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality deciding on preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured dyadic interviews with 13 couples (N = 26) carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality. All couples had an informative consultation in our PGT centre in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Almost all couples considered PGT or natural conception combined with prenatal diagnosis (PND) as the only two reproductive options. Among several considerations mentioned, the majority indicated that the wish to increase the chance of a successful pregnancy was the most important motive to opt for PGT. All couples who opted for PGT had first tried to conceive spontaneously and entered the PGT programme because of their adverse experiences during these attempts (infertility, recurrent miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, birth of an affected child). Couples that refrained from PGT were of advanced maternal age and expressed the long trajectory of PGT as the main reason to refrain. If conceiving spontaneously would not lead to an ongoing pregnancy, these couples also indicated that they would use PGT. CONCLUSION: This study shows that couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality consider PGT and spontaneous conception with PND as relevant reproductive options. They are looking for the option that is in their opinion the fastest way to establish a successful pregnancy. Information on the perceived pros and cons of PGT or spontaneous conception in these couples can help to optimize counselling and psychological support during the decision-making process.

Counseling young women with early breast cancer on fertility preservation.

PURPOSE: Women with early-stage breast cancer may still have a future child wish, while chemotherapy may impair fertility. To pursue on fertility preservation shortly after breast cancer diagnosis is complex. This review holds a critical reflection on all topics that need to be counseled to give them the opportunity to make a well-informed decision before starting any oncological treatment. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed on papers published in English language on breast cancer in young women, risk of chemotherapy-induced infertility, fertility preservation techniques, impact of possible mutation carriership, and future pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: Below 40 years of age, the risk of permanent chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure is approximately 20%, where taxanes do not significantly add to this risk. Overall, 23% of reported women who performed fertility preservation by cryopreserving oocytes or embryos returned for embryo transfer. Of these, 40% gave live birth. Both fertility preservation in women diagnosed with breast cancer and pregnancy after treatment seem safe with respect to breast cancer survival. Women who have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer like BRCA gene mutation should also be informed about the possibility of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Women with an early stage of breast cancer and a possible future child wish should be referred to an expertise center in breast cancer, fertility preservation, and genetics in this complex decision-making process, shortly after diagnosis.

Preimplantation genetic testing for more than one genetic condition: clinical and ethical considerations and dilemmas.

STUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and ethical aspects of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements (PGT-M, PGT-SR) should be considered when accepting requests and counselling couples for PGT when applied for more than one condition (combination-PGT; cPGT-M/SR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: cPGT is a feasible extension of the practice of PGT-M/SR that may require adapting the criteria many countries have in place with regard to indications-setting for PGT-M/SR, while leading to complex choices that require timely counselling and information. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although PGT-M/SR is usually performed to prevent transmission of one disorder, requests for PGT-M/SR for more than one condition (cPGT-M/SR) are becoming less exceptional. However, knowledge about implications for a responsible application of such treatments is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective review of all (40) PGT-M/SR applications concerning more than one genetic condition over the period 1995-2018 in the files of the Dutch national PGT centre. This comprises all relevant national data since the start of PGT in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: Data regarding cPGT-M/SR cases were collected by means of reviewing medical files of couples applying for cPGT-M/SR. Ethical challenges arising with cPGT-M/SR were explored against the background of PGT-M/SR regulations in several European countries, as well as of relevant ESHRE-guidance regarding both indications-setting and transfer-decisions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We report 40 couples applying for cPGT-M/SR of which 16 couples started their IVF treatment. Together they underwent 39 IVF cycles leading to the birth of five healthy children. Of the couples applying for cPGT, 45% differentiated between a primary and secondary condition in terms of perceived severity. In the light of an altered balance of benefits and drawbacks, we argue the 'high risk of a serious condition' standard that many countries uphold as governing indications-setting, should be lowered for secondary conditions in couples who already have an indication for PGT-M/SR. As a consequence of cPGT, professionals will more often be confronted with requests for transferring embryos known to be affected with a condition that they were tested for. In line with ESHRE guidance, such transfers may well be acceptable, on the condition of avoiding a high risk of a child with a seriously diminished quality of life. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We are the first to give an overview of cPGT-M/SR treatments. Retrospective analysis was performed using national data, possibly not reflecting current trends worldwide. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our observations have led to recommendations for cPGT-M/SR that may add to centre policy making and to the formulation of professional guidelines. Given that the introduction of generic methods for genomic analysis in PGT will regularly yield incidental findings leading to transfer requests with these same challenges, the importance of our discussion exceeds the present discussion of cPGT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The research for this publication was funded by the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), project number: 141111002 (Long term safety, quality and ethics of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis). None of the authors has any competing interests to declare.

The cognitive and socio-emotional development of 5-year-old children born after PGD.

STUDY QUESTION: Does PGD increase the risk on adverse cognitive and socio-emotional development? SUMMARY ANSWER: The cognitive and socio-emotional development in children born after PGD seems to be normal when compared to control groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A limited number of studies with small sample sizes indicate that the cognitive and socio-emotional development of (pre)school-aged children born after either PGD or PGS seem to be comparable to those of children born after IVF/ICSI and to naturally conceived (NC) children from the general population. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: For this study we invited 72 5-year-old PGD children, 128 5-year-old IVF/ICSI children and 108 5-year-old NC children from families with a genetic disorder. All children were invited between January 2014 and July 2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 51 PGD children, 52 IVF/ICSI children and 35 NC children underwent neuropsychological testing (WPPSI-III-NL and AWMA). The children's parent(s) and teachers filled in questionnaires evaluating children's executive functioning (Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functions; BRIEF) and socio-emotional development (Child Behaviour Checklist; CBCL and Caregiver-Teacher Report Form; C-TRF). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The mean full-scale intelligence quotient scores (P = 0.426) and performance on the AWMA Listening Span task (P = 0.873) and Spatial Span task (P = 0.458) were comparable between the three groups. Regarding socio-emotional development, the teachers' scores revealed more externalizing (P = 0.011) and total problem (P = 0.019) behaviour in PGD children than for IVF/ICSI children; both groups did not differ significantly from the NC children (P = 0.11). More children (13%) with an affected first-degree family member (mostly parent) were included in the PGD group than in the NC group. Scores in all groups fell within the normal population range and should be considered normal. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The number of NC children from families with a genetic disorder was relatively small. Furthermore, the fathers' CBCL results were based on small samples. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: PGD children show levels of cognitive and socio-emotional development at 5 years that are within the normal range, despite the biopsy involved in PGD and the potential extra psychological burden associated with the presence of a genetic disorder in the family. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMw (70-71300-98-106). None of the authors have any competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02149485.

Support needs of couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer during reproductive decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Reproductive decision making for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is complex and can result in decisional conflict or regret. This study investigated couples' support needs and aimed to identify vulnerable couples. Ultimately, we should strive to develop a clear standard of care guideline regarding reproductive decision support. METHODS: Mixed methods were used for data collection. A focus group study was conducted among 18 couples (N = 35) with HBOC who had made a reproductive decision after reproductive counselling. Subsequently, 129 similar couples (N = 258) were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey based on the focus group study. RESULTS: Clinical and practical aspects of reproductive counselling were positively evaluated in the focus group study, although couples indicated a need for additional support with emotional and social concerns in which their relationship, social environment, and the way they picture their desired family were key elements. The survey was completed by 86 participants. Making a reproductive choice was experienced as (very) difficult by 43%, and 69% showed a need for additional support during decision making. Younger participants and those who opted for a natural pregnancy experienced more difficulty with reproductive decision making, and partners showed a higher need for psychological support than carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Couples with HBOC who need to make a reproductive decision have specific needs for guidance and support, of which the desired content and methods can vary. It is therefore important to identify vulnerable couples and to attune counselling to couples' needs.

Reproductive Decision Support: Preferences and Needs of Couples at Risk for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Geneticists.

For couples at high risk of transmitting a cancer predisposition to offspring, reproductive decision-making can be challenging. As the choice between available reproductive options is preference-sensitive, the use of a decision aid can support these couples in their decisional process. The present study aims to investigate preferences and needs of involved stakeholders regarding the development and implementation of a patient decision aid. Semi-structured interviews assessing the needs and preferences regarding the content and functionalities of a decision support program were conducted among seven couples at risk for hereditary cancer and among eight clinical geneticists involved in oncogenetic counseling. Many similarities were found between the expressed preferences and needs of both stakeholder groups concerning the content, barriers and facilitating factors regarding the use of the decision aid, and its implementation. Emphasis was placed on the use of simple non-medical language, an extensive explanation of the procedures and techniques used in prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and the role of health care providers to refer couples to the decision aid. Both stakeholder groups were in favor of incorporating narrative stories in the decision aid. Integrating the present findings with knowledge on reproductive decisional motives and considerations is essential in guiding the development of a decision aid that corresponds to the preferences and needs of end-users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR5467.

Professionals' knowledge, attitude and referral behaviour of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer caused by a BRCA1/2 mutation is the most frequent indication for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in the Netherlands. The extent to which involved professionals are informed about this option, however, is unclear. The few available international studies mostly represent a limited range of professionals, and suggest that their knowledge about PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes is sparse and referral for PGD is based on limited understanding. A cross-sectional survey assessing awareness, knowledge, acceptability and PGD-referral for BRCA was completed by 188 professionals involved in the field of breast and ovarian cancer or reproduction. One-half of professionals were aware of PGD for BRCA, and most had a low to moderate level of knowledge. A total of 86% considered PGD for BRCA acceptable and 48% had referred patients with BRCA for PGD. Awareness and knowledge was higher among professionals who worked at a university hospital (compared with a general hospital). Knowledge of PGD was positively associated with discussing and referring for PGD, and PGD acceptability was associated with previous awareness. Although PGD counselling is the primary responsibility of the geneticist, other involved professionals may be gatekeepers as patients rely on them for raising awareness and referral.

BRCA1 mutation carriers have a lower number of mature oocytes after ovarian stimulation for IVF/PGD.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether BRCA1/2 mutation carriers produce fewer mature oocytes after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in comparison to a PGD control group. METHODS: A retrospective, international, multicenter cohort study was performed on data of first PGD cycles performed between January 2006 and September 2015. Data were extracted from medical files. The study was performed in one PGD center and three affiliated IVF centers in the Netherlands and one PGD center in Belgium. Exposed couples underwent PGD because of a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation, controls for other monogenic conditions. Only couples treated in a long gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist-suppressive protocol, stimulated with at least 150 IU follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), were included. Women suspected to have a diminished ovarian reserve status due to chemotherapy, auto-immune disorders, or genetic conditions (other than BRCA1/2 mutations) were excluded. A total of 106 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers underwent PGD in this period, of which 43 (20 BRCA1 and 23 BRCA2 mutation carriers) met the inclusion criteria. They were compared to 174 controls selected by frequency matching. RESULTS: Thirty-eight BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (18 BRCA1 and 20 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and 154 controls proceeded to oocyte pickup. The median number of mature oocytes was 7.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-9.0) in the BRCA group as a whole, 6.5 (IQR 4.0-8.0) in BRCA1 mutation carriers, 7.5 (IQR 5.5-9.0) in BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 8.0 (IQR 6.0-11.0) in controls. Multiple linear regression analysis with the number of mature oocytes as a dependent variable and adjustment for treatment center, female age, female body mass index (BMI), type of gonadotropin used, and the total dose of gonadotropins administered revealed a significantly lower yield of mature oocytes in the BRCA group as compared to controls (p = 0.04). This finding could be fully accounted for by the BRCA1 subgroup (BRCA1 mutation carriers versus controls p = 0.02, BRCA2 mutation carriers versus controls p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian response to stimulation, expressed as the number of mature oocytes, was reduced in BRCA1 but not in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Although oocyte yield was in correspondence to a normal response in all subgroups, this finding points to a possible negative influence of the BRCA1 gene on ovarian reserve.

Awareness and attitude regarding reproductive options of persons carrying a BRCA mutation and their partners.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent are BRCA mutation carriers and their partners in the Netherlands aware about preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) as reproductive options and what is their attitude towards these options? SUMMARY ANSWER: Awareness of PGD (66%) and PND (61%) among BRCA mutation carriers and their partners is relatively high and 80% and 26%, respectively, of BRCA carriers and their partners find offering PGD and PND for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) acceptable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Internationally, awareness of PGD among persons with a genetic cancer predisposition appears to be relatively low (35%) and although acceptability is generally high (71%), only a small proportion of mutation carriers would consider using PGD (36%). However, for HBOC, there are no studies available that investigated the perspective of individuals with a confirmed BRCA1/2 mutation and their partners about PGD and PND including demographic and medical correlates of awareness and acceptability. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey was completed by 191 participants between July 2012 and June 2013. Participants were recruited through patient organizations (88%) and the databases of two Clinical Genetics departments in the Netherlands (12%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Male and female BRCA carriers and their partners completed an online survey, which assessed demographic and medical characteristics, and awareness, knowledge, acceptability and consideration of PGD and PND as main outcomes. Correlations between demographic and medical characteristics and the main outcomes were investigated. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: The majority of respondents were female (87%), of reproductive age (86%) and about half reported a desire for a child in the future. About two-thirds (66%) were aware of PGD and 61% of PND for HBOC. PGD knowledge was moderate (5.5 on a 9-point scale) and acceptability of PGD and PND for HBOC was 80% and 26%, respectively. A minority would personally consider using PGD (39%) or PND (20%). Individuals with a higher educational level were more likely to be aware of PGD (P < 0.001) and PND (P < 0.001) and persons with a more immediate child wish were more often aware of PGD (P = 0.044) and had more knowledge about PGD (P = 0.001). PGD acceptability was positively associated with knowledge about PGD (P = 0.047), and PND acceptability was higher among partners in comparison to carriers (P = 0.001). Participants with a history of cancer and with a higher perceived seriousness of breast and ovarian cancer were more likely to consider using PGD (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001 respectively) or PND (P = 0.021 and P = 0.017 respectively). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The response rate (23%) of participants invited by the clinical genetics departments was low, probably related to a simultaneous study that used a similar recruitment strategy within the same target group, which may have resulted in selection bias. Moreover, PGD knowledge was measured with an instrument that is not yet validated since to date such an instrument is not available in the literature. Finally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits us from drawing any causal conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Improvement of information provision remains needed, in order to timely inform all couples with HBOC about the available reproductive options and enable them to make a balanced reproductive decision. This may limit the risk of negative psychological impact due to decisional conflict and possible regret. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon (grant number 2010.PS11.C74). None of the authors have competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Refining the phenotypical and mutational spectrum of Taybi-Linder syndrome.

Taybi-Linder syndrome (TALS, OMIM 210710) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder belonging to the group of microcephalic osteodysplastic primordial dwarfisms (MOPD). This syndrome is characterized by short stature, skeletal anomalies, severe microcephaly with brain malformations and facial dysmorphism, and is caused by mutations in RNU4ATAC. RNU4ATAC is transcribed into a non-coding small nuclear RNA which is a critical component of the minor spliceosome. We report here four foetuses and four unrelated patients with RNU4ATAC mutations. We provide antenatal descriptions of this rare syndrome including unusual features found in two twin foetuses with compound heterozygosity for two rare mutations who presented with mild intrauterine growth retardation and atypical dysmorphic facial features. We also carried out a literature review of the patients described up to now with RNU4ATAC mutations, affected either with TALS or Roifman syndrome, a recently described allelic disorder.

Recurrent miscarriage in translocation carriers: no differences in clinical characteristics between couples who accept and couples who decline PGD.

STUDY QUESTION: Do clinical characteristics of recurrent miscarriage couples with a chromosomal abnormality and who opt for PGD differ from couples that decline PGD after extensive genetic counselling? SUMMARY ANSWER: No differences in clinical characteristics are identified between recurrent miscarriage couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality who opt for PGD compared with those that decline PGD after extensive genetic counselling. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples who have experienced two or more miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage) are at increased recurrence risk if one of the partners carries a structural chromosomal abnormality. PGD can be offered to avoid (another) miscarriage or pregnancy termination when (invasive) prenatal diagnosis shows an abnormal result. To date, no reports are available that describe reproductive decision-making after genetic counselling on PGD in these specific couples. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective cohort study of 294 couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality seeking genetic counselling on PGD between 1996 and 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were recurrent miscarriage couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality. They had been referred for genetic counselling to the only national licensed PGD centre. Clinical characteristics analysed included couple associated characteristics, characteristics concerning reproductive history and external characteristics such as type of physician that referred the couple for genetic counselling and the clinical geneticist performing the counselling on PGD. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 294 couples referred for counselling on PGD, 26 were not accepted because they did not meet the criteria for IVF-PGD. The remaining cohort of 268 couples consisted of two-thirds female and one-third male carriers. Main PGD indications were reciprocal translocations (83.9%) and Robertsonian translocations (16.7%). Following genetic counselling, 76.9% of included couples chose PGD as their reproductive option, the others declined PGD. Reproductive choice is not influenced by sex of the translocation carrier (P = 0.499), type of chromosomal abnormality (P = 0.346), number of previous miscarriages (P = 0.882), history of termination of pregnancy (TOP) because of an unbalanced fetal karyotype (P = 0.800), referring physician (P = 0.208) or geneticist who performed the counselling (P = 0.410). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study only included recurrent miscarriage couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality, who were actually referred to a PGD clinic for genetic counselling. We lack information on couples who were not referred for PGD. Some of these patients may not have been informed on PGD at all, while others were not referred for counselling because they did not opt for PGD to start with. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study shows that reproductive choices in couples with recurrent miscarriage on the basis of a structural chromosomal abnormality are not influenced by characteristics of the couple itself, nor by their obstetric history or external characteristics. These findings suggest that a couples' intrinsic attitude towards PGD treatment is a major factor influencing their reproductive choice. Future research will focus on these personal motives that seem to push reproductive decision-making following genetic counselling in a given direction.

Decision-making on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis: a challenge for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

STUDY QUESTION: How do couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation decide on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC)? SUMMARY ANSWER: BRCA couples primarily classify PGD and/or PND as reproductive options based on the perceived severity of HBOC and moral considerations, and consequently weigh the few important advantages of PGD against numerous smaller disadvantages. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Awareness of PGD is generally low among persons at high risk for hereditary cancers. Most persons with HBOC are in favour of offering PGD for BRCA1/2 mutations, although only a minority would consider this option for themselves. Studies exploring the motivations for using or refraining from PGD among well-informed BRCA carriers of reproductive age are lacking. We studied the reproductive decision-making process by interviewing a group of well-informed, reproductive aged couples carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, regarding their decisional motives and considerations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This exploratory, qualitative study investigated the motives and considerations taken into account by couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation and who have received extensive counselling on PGD and PND and have made a well-informed decision regarding this option. Eighteen couples took part in focus group and dyadic interviews between January and September 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted containing two to four couples, assembled based on the reproductive method the couple had chosen: PGD (n = 6 couples) or conception without testing (n = 8 couples). Couples who had chosen PND for BRCA (n = 4) were interviewed dyadically. Two of the women, of whom one had chosen PND and the other had chosen no testing, had a history of breast cancer. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the couples who opted for PGD or conception without testing found the use of PND, with possible pregnancy termination, acceptable. PND users chose this method because of decisive, mainly practical reasons (natural conception, high chance of favourable outcome). Motives and considerations regarding PGD largely overlapped between PGD users, PND users and non-users, all mentioning some significant advantages (e.g. protecting the child and family from the mutation) and many smaller disadvantages (e.g. the necessity of in vitro fertilization (IVF), low chance of pregnancy by IVF/PGD). For female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time required for PGD before undergoing preventive surgeries were important factors in the decision. Non-users expressed doubts about the moral justness of their decision afterwards and emphasized the impact the decision still had on their lives. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The interviewed couples were at different stages in their chosen trajectory, up to 3 years after completion. This may have led to recall bias of original motives and considerations. Couples who did not actively seek information about PGD were excluded. Therefore the results may not be readily generalizable to all BRCA couples. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The perceived severity of HBOC and, for female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time frames for PGD planning before preventive surgeries are essential items BRCA couples consider in reproductive decision-making. The emotional impact of this decision should not be underestimated; especially non-users may experience feelings of doubt or guilt up to several years afterwards. PGD counselling with tailored information addressing these items and decisional support in order to guarantee well-informed decision-making is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon, grant number 2010.PS11.C74. None of the authors have competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

The uptake and outcome of prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington's disease in the Netherlands (1998-2008).

We aimed to study reproductive behaviour of couples opting for prenatal diagnosis (PND) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for Huntington's disease (HD). In the Netherlands, exclusion PND is available for persons at 50% risk, whereas exclusion PGD is not allowed. All 162 couples who underwent PND or PGD for HD between 1998 and 2008 and referrals for exclusion PGD to Belgium were included. Couples' reproductive information was collected until December 2010; 132 couples (81.5%) underwent PND in 262 pregnancies, 54 (33.3%) started PGD, and 25 used both. Sixteen percent of PND couples used exclusion PND and 6% used exclusion PGD. The outcomes were 76.5% of PND couples delivered ≥1 unaffected child(ren) after PND, and 44.4% of PGD couples delivered ≥1 PGD child(ren) (mean 2.5 cycles/couple). Couples opting for PGD secondarily (after a previous pregnancy) had more frequently terminated a pregnancy for HD (87.0%) compared with couples secondarily opting for PND (55.2%; p = 0.015). At-risk or HD expansion carrier males were underrepresented in the group of couples primarily opting for PGD (25%) and overrepresented in the secondary PGD group (64%). We conclude that couples reconsider their choices in every subsequent pregnancy based on their previous experience, personal beliefs and the gender of the at-risk partner.

Prenatal testing for Huntington's disease in the Netherlands from 1998 to 2008.

This study aims to give an overview of the number of prenatal tests for Huntington's disease (HD), test results, and pregnancy outcomes in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2008 and to compare them with available data from the period 1987 to 1997. A total of 126 couples underwent prenatal diagnosis (PND) on 216 foetuses: 185 (86%) direct tests and 31 (14%) exclusion tests. In 9% of direct tests the risk for the foetus was 25%. Four at-risk parents (4%) carried intermediate alleles. Ninety-one foetuses had CAG expansions ≥36% or 50% risk haplotypes: 75 (82%) were terminated for HD, 12 (13%) were carried to term; four pregnancies were miscarried, terminated for other reasons or lost to follow-up. Unaffected pregnancies (122 foetuses) resulted in the birth of 112 children. The estimated uptake of PND was 22% of CAG expansion carriers (≥36 repeats) at reproductive age. PND was used by two new subgroups: carriers of intermediate alleles and 50% at-risk persons opting for a direct prenatal test of the foetus. A significant number of HD expansion or 50% risk pregnancies were continued. Speculations were made on causative factors contributing to these continuations. Further research on these couples' motives is needed.

Reproductive options for prospective parents in families with Huntington's disease: clinical, psychological and ethical reflections.

BACKGROUND Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative late onset disorder. This review of reproductive options aims to increase reproductive confidence and to prevent suffering in relation to family planning around HD and possibly other late onset neurodegenerative disorders. METHODS Selected relevant literature and own views and experiences as clinical geneticists, psychologists and ethicists have been used. RESULTS Possible options, with emphasis on prenatal diagnosis (PD) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to prevent the transmission of HD to the next generation, are described and discussed. They are formally presented in a decision tree, taking into account the presence or absence of a fully penetrant allele (FPA), a reduced penetrant allele (RPA) or an intermediate allele (IA). A table compares invasive and non-invasive PD and PGD. From a psychological perspective, the complex process of counselling and decision-making regarding reproductive options is discussed. Special attention is paid to the decision to avoid the transmission of the mutation and to the confrontation and coping of a mutation-free child growing up with a parent developing disease symptoms. From an ethical point of view, reflections on both PD and PGD are brought forward taking into account the difference between FPA, RPA and IA, direct testing or exclusion testing and taking into account the welfare of the child in the context of medically assisted reproduction. CONCLUSION Recommendations and suggestions for good clinical practice in the reproductive care for HD families are formulated.

Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21: systematic review and report of quality and outcomes of diagnostic accuracy studies performed between 1997 and 2012.

BACKGROUND: Research on noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of fetal trisomy 21 is developing fast. Commercial tests have become available. To provide an up-to-date overview of NIPT of trisomy 21, an evaluation of the methodological quality and outcomes of diagnostic accuracy studies was made. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of the literature published between 1997 and 2012 after searching PubMed, using MeSH terms 'RNA', 'DNA' and 'Down Syndrome' in combination with 'cell-free fetal (cff) RNA', 'cffDNA', 'trisomy 21' and 'noninvasive prenatal diagnosis' and searching reference lists of reported literature. From 79 abstracts, 16 studies were included as they evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a molecular technique for NIPT of trisomy 21, and the test sensitivity and specificity were reported. Meta-analysis could not be performed due to the use of six different molecular techniques and different cutoff points. Diagnostic parameters were derived or calculated, and possible bias and applicability were evaluated utilizing the revised tool for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Seven of the included studies were recently published in large cohort studies that examined massively parallel sequencing (MPS), with or without pre-selection of chromosomes, and reported sensitivities between 98.58% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95.9-99.5%] and 100% (95% CI 96-100%) and specificities between 97.95% (95% CI 94.1-99.3%) and 100% (95% CI 99.1-100%). None of these seven large studies had an overall low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. MPS with or without pre-selection of chromosomes exhibits an excellent negative predictive value (100%) in conditions with disease odds from 1:1500 to 1:200. However, positive predictive values were lower, even in high-risk pregnancies (19.7-100%). The other nine cohort studies were too small to give precise estimates (number of trisomy 21 cases: ≤25) and were not included in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT of trisomy 21 by MPS with or without pre-selection of chromosomes is promising and likely to replace the prenatal serum screening test that is currently combined with nuchal translucency measurement in the first trimester of pregnancy. Before NIPT can be introduced as a screening test in a social insurance health-care system, more evidence is needed from large prospective diagnostic accuracy studies in first trimester pregnancies. Moreover, we believe further assessment, of whether NIPT can be provided in a cost-effective, timely and equitable manner for every pregnant woman, is required.

Evaluation of exclusion prenatal and exclusion preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington's disease in the Netherlands.

Individuals at 50% risk of Huntington's disease (HD) who prefer not to know their carrier status, might opt for exclusion prenatal diagnosis (ePND) or exclusion preimplantation genetic diagnosis (ePGD). This study aims to provide a better understanding of couples' motives for choosing ePND or ePND, and surveys couples' experiences in order to make recommendations for the improvement of counselling for exclusion testing. This qualitative retrospective interview study focussed on couples who underwent ePND or ePGD for HD in the period 1996-2010. Seventeen couples were included of which 13 had experienced ePND and 6 ePGD. Mean time-interval since exclusion-testing was 3.9 years. Couples' moral reservations regarding termination of pregnancy (TOP) or discarding healthy embryos were counterbalanced by the wish to protect their future child against HD. Seven couples had terminated a total of 11 pregnancies with a 50% HD risk, none showed regret. ePGD was used by couples who wanted to avoid (another) TOP. ePND and ePGD are acceptable reproductive options for a specific group of counsellees. To guarantee sound standards of care, it is imperative that candidate couples be given in-depth non-directive counselling about all possible scenarios, and adequate professional and psychological support prior to, during and after ePND/ePGD.