Familial Cancer

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 549–556 | Cite as

Attitudes toward childbearing and prenatal testing in individuals undergoing genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome

  • Akriti Dewanwala
  • Anu Chittenden
  • Margery Rosenblatt
  • Rowena Mercado
  • Judy E. Garber
  • Sapna Syngal
  • Elena M. Stoffel
Article

Abstract

To examine attitudes toward childbearing and prenatal genetic testing among individuals at risk for Lynch Syndrome (LS), the most common type of hereditary colorectal cancer. Individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing for mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations completed written questionnaires before and after testing. 161 of 192 (84%) eligible individuals participated in the study. Mean age was 46 years (range 20–75), 71% were female, 53% had a personal diagnosis of cancer, and 68% had children. Eighty percent worried about their children’s risk for developing cancer; however only 9% reported their decision to have children was affected by their family history of cancer. When asked whether providing prenatal testing to carriers of MMR gene mutations was ethical, 66% (86/130) of respondents agreed/strongly agreed, 25% (32) were neutral and 9% (12) disagreed/strongly disagreed. Of 48 individuals planning to have children in the future, 57% (27) intended to have children regardless of their genetic test result. If found to carry a MMR gene mutation that confirmed LS, 42% (20) would consider prenatal testing for a future pregnancy and 20% (7/35) of women would consider having children earlier in order to have prophylactic surgery to reduce their risk for gynecologic cancers. Individuals undergoing genetic testing for LS may utilize test results to make reproductive decisions. Clinicians should be prepared to discuss options of reproductive genetic technologies during counseling of LS patients of childbearing age.

Keywords

Lynch syndrome Prenatal testing Preimplantation genetic diagnosis Family Genetic testing Genetic counseling 

References

  1. 1.
    Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E et al (1999) Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer 81:214–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA et al (1995) Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer 64:430–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garber JE, Offit K (2005) Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J Clin Oncol 23:276–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A (2003) Hereditary colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 348:919–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118:829–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jarvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktan-Collan K et al (2009) Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol 27:4793–4797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW et al (2006) Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. Jama 296:1507–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarin JJ et al (1992) Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N Engl J Med 327:905–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sermon K, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I (2004) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lancet 363:1633–1641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strom CM, Ginsberg N, Rechitsky S et al (1998) Three births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis with sequential first and second polar body analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:1298–1306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sermon K, Lissens W, Tarlatzis B et al (1992) Beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase activity in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 7:1278–1280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, Chistokhina A et al (2002) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer predisposition. Reprod Biomed Online 5:148–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Offit K, Kohut K, Clagett B et al (2006) Cancer genetic testing and assisted reproduction. J Clin Oncol 24:4775–4782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spits C, De Rycke M, Van Ranst N et al (2007) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer predisposition syndromes. Prenat Diagn 27:447–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guran S, Tunca Y (2005) Prenatal diagnosis history of a Li-Fraumeni syndrome family. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 157:191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Avigad S, Peleg D, Barel D, Benyaminy H, Ben-Baruch N, Taub E, Shohat M, Goshen Y, Cohen IJ, Yaniv I, Zaizov R (2004) Prenatal diagnosis in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 26:541–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O et al (2001) Preimplantation diagnosis for p53 tumour suppressor gene mutations. Reprod Biomed Online 2:102–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ao A, Wells D, Handyside AH et al (1998) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited cancer: familial adenomatous polyposis coli. J Assist Reprod Genet 15:140–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalton A, Shannon NL, Johnson M et al (1998) Prenatal diagnosis to exclude FAP in a high risk pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 18:756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis T, Song B, Cram DS (2006) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis. Reprod Biomed Online 13:707–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moutou C, Gardes N, Nicod JC et al (2007) Strategies and outcomes of PGD of familial adenomatous polyposis. Mol Hum Reprod 13:95–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang SM, Tao BL, Tzeng CC, Liu HT, Wang WP (1997) Prenatal molecular diagnosis of RET proto-oncogene mutation in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A. J Formos Med Assoc 96:542–544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner TM, Ahner R (1998) Prenatal testing for late-onset diseases such as mutations in the breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1). Just a choice or a step in the wrong direction? Hum Reprod 13:1125–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jasper MJ, Liebelt LJ, Hussey ND (2008) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for BRCA1 exon 13 duplication mutation using linked polymorphic markers resulting in a live birth. Prenat Diagn 28:292–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Braude P (2006) Preimplantation diagnosis for genetic susceptibility. N Engl J Med 355:541–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    London SoM, London. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority PGD Conditions Licensed by the HFEA. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/pgd-screening.html. Accessed on January 14 2010
  27. 27.
    Dommering CJ, Moll AC, Imhof SM et al (2004) Another liveborn after preimplantation genetic diagnosis for retinoblastoma. Am J Ophthalmol 138:1088–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Girardet A, Hamamah S, Anahory T et al (2003) First preimplantation genetic diagnosis of hereditary retinoblastoma using informative microsatellite markers. Mol Hum Reprod 9:111–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pierro L, Brancato R, Capoferri C (1993) Prenatal detection and early diagnosis of hereditary retinoblastoma in a family. Ophthalmologica 207:106–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu K, Rosenwaks Z, Beaverson K et al (2004) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for retinoblastoma: the first reported liveborn. Am J Ophthalmol 137:18–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP et al (2004) Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:261–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E et al (2003) Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 163:573–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Markel DS, Young AB, Penney JB (1987) At-risk persons’ attitudes toward presymptomatic and prenatal testing of Huntington disease in Michigan. Am J Med Genet 26:295–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lerman C, Daly M, Masny A et al (1994) Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 12:843–850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Croyle RT, Lerman C (1999) Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25:59–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Mecklin JP et al (2001) Comprehension of cancer risk one and 12 months after predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 38:787–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stoffel EM, Ford B, Mercado RC et al (2008) Sharing genetic test results in Lynch syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:333–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stoffel EM, Mercado RC, Kohlmann W et al (2010) Prevalence and predictors of appropriate colorectal cancer surveillance in lynch syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 105(8):1851–1860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    DiGianni LM, Kim HT, Emmons K et al (2003) Complementary medicine use among women enrolled in a genetic testing program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:321–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kastrinos F, Stoffel EM, Balmana J et al (2007) Attitudes toward prenatal genetic testing in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1284–1290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Digianni LM, Rue M, Emmons K et al (2006) Complementary medicine use before and 1 year following genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:70–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fortuny D, Balmana J, Grana B et al (2009) Opinion about reproductive decision making among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a multicentre Spanish cohort. Hum Reprod 24(1):000–006Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    American Medical Association (1994) Code of medical ethics. Arch Fam Med 3:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Offit K, Sagi M, Hurley K (2006) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer syndromes: a new challenge for preventive medicine. Jama 296:2727–2730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Wilson C et al (2009) Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 91:2361–2368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Menon U, Harper J, Sharma A et al (2007) Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 22:1573–1577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C et al (2009) ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2007. Hum Reprod 24:1786–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Clancy T (2010) A clinical perspective on ethical arguments around prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for later onset inherited cancer predispositions. Fam Cancer 9:9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lancaster JM, Wiseman RW, Berchuck A (1996) An inevitable dilemma: prenatal testing for mutations in the BRCA1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. Obstet Gynecol 87:306–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kalfoglou AL, Doksum T, Bernhardt B et al (2005) Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: hopes and fears for our genetic future. Fertil Steril 83:1612–1621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    (2004) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis—for or against humanity? Lancet 364:1729–1730Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Douma KF, Aaronson NK, Vasen HF et al (2010) Attitudes toward genetic testing in childhood and reproductive decision-making for familial adenomatous polyposis. Eur J Hum Genet 18:186–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Crockin SL (2005) Reproduction, genetics and the law. Reprod Biomed Online 10:692–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akriti Dewanwala
    • 1
  • Anu Chittenden
    • 1
  • Margery Rosenblatt
    • 1
  • Rowena Mercado
    • 1
  • Judy E. Garber
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sapna Syngal
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Elena M. Stoffel
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Population SciencesDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Adult OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Division of GastroenterologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations