Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1238–1247 | Cite as

Attitudes Toward and Uptake of Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing in Twin Pregnancies

  • Kathryn M. Reese
  • Jennifer Czerwinski
  • Sandra Darilek
  • Anthony Johnson
  • Malorie Jones
  • Claire N. Singletary
Original Research

Abstract

The rate of twinning is rising and since the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing, interest in and uptake of genetic screening and testing in twin pregnancies has not been investigated. This study aimed to explore the attitudes toward and uptake of current prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing options for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies. Women being seen for genetic counseling with twin gestations were recruited for participation in a descriptive study with questionnaire (n = 42) and semi-structured phone interview (n = 15). Women were significantly more in favor of screening than diagnostic testing (p = 0.049). Sixty-nine (n = 25) percent elected screening, while one participant had a diagnostic procedure. Women were interested in screening for preparation or reassurance despite having concerns about accuracy and uncertainty. Most women (86%) felt they would make the same decision in a singleton pregnancy. Despite this, 48% cited twin pregnancy as influential to some degree. Information learned from providers, past experiences, and family and friends were also cited as influencing and anchoring factors, suggesting that tailoring prenatal genetic counseling sessions for twins might parallel that of singletons. No significant differences between natural and assisted conception patients were found. Although it did not alter patient decisions, genetic counseling was used as a platform to raise concerns and gather information.

Keywords

Prenatal genetic counseling Prenatal genetic testing Twin pregnancies Attitudes Uptake 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as an M.S. thesis project per the degree requirements at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences in the Genetic Counseling Program. We would like to thank the prenatal genetic counselors from UTHealth and Baylor College of Medicine who assisted with recruitment and data collection. Additionally, we would like to thank all of the patients for their time and participation in this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests

Kathryn M. Reese, Jennifer Czerwinski, Sandra Darilek, Anthony Johnson, Malorie Jones, and Claire N. Singletary declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

References

  1. ACOG practice bulletin. (2016). Practice bulletin no. 163 summary: Screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 127, 979–981.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allyse, M., Sayres, L. C., Goodspeed, T. A., & Cho, M. K. (2014). Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age. Journal of Perinatology, 34(6), 429–434.  https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Cahill, A. G., Macones, G. A., Stamilio, D. M., Dicke, J. M., Crane, J. P., & Odibo, A. O. (2009). Pregnancy loss rate after mid-trimester amniocentesis in twin pregnancies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 200(3), 257 e251–257 e256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.html.
  5. Cousineau, T. M., & Domar, A. D. (2007). Psychological impact of infertility. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 21(2), 293–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friel, L. A., Czerwinski, J. L., & Singletary, C. N. (2014). The impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on the practice of maternal-fetal medicine. American Journal of Perinatology, 31(9), 759–764.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1359717.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gagnon, A., & Audibert, F. (2014). Prenatal screening and diagnosis of aneuploidy in multiple pregnancies. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 28(2), 285–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., Osterman, M. J., Curtin, S. C., & Matthews, T. J. (2015). Births: Final data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64(12), 1–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, A., & Jauniaux, E. (2004). Prospective study of parental choice for aneuploidy screening in assisted conception versus spontaneously conceived twins. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 8(2), 243–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lenis-Cordoba, N., Sanchez, M. A., Bello-Munoz, J. C., Sagala-Martinez, J., Campos, N., Carreras-Moratonas, E., & Cabero-Roura, L. (2013). Amniocentesis and the risk of second trimester fetal loss in twin pregnancies: Results from a prospective observational study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 26(15), 1537–1541.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.791271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Malone, F. D., Canick, J. A., Ball, R. H., Nyberg, D. A., Comstock, C. H., Bukowski, R., Second-Trimester Evaluation of Risk Research, C, et al. (2005). First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. The New England Journal of Medicine, 353(19), 2001–2011.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043693.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Matias, A., Montenegro, N., & Blickstein, I. (2005). Down syndrome screening in multiple pregnancies. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 32(1), 81–96, ix.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2004.10.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyers, C., Adam, R., Dungan, J., & Prenger, V. (1997). Aneuploidy in twin gestations: When is maternal age advanced? Obstetrics and Gynecology, 89(2), 248–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00424-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Peters, K. F., Saltsman, B. M., & Petrill, S. A. (2006). Twin gestation pregnancies: Genetic counseling and testing experience. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 119–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9007-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Pivetti, M., & Melotti, G. (2013). Prenatal genetic testing: An investigation of determining factors affecting the decision-making process. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 76–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9498-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive, T., & The American Society for Reproductive, M. (2004). Guidelines on the number of embryos transferred. Fertility and Sterility, 82(Suppl 1), S1–S2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.07.937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sanders, K. A., & Bruce, N. W. (1999). Psychosocial stress and treatment outcome following assisted reproductive technology. Human Reproduction, 14(6), 1656–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor-Phillips, S., Freeman, K., Geppert, J., Agbebiyi, A., Uthman, O. A., Madan, J., Clarke, A., Quenby, S., & Clarke, A. (2016). Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 6(1), e010002.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Genetic Counseling ProgramUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive SciencesMcGovern Medical School at UTHealthHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Molecular and Human GeneticsBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PediatricsMcGovern Medical School at UTHealthHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations