Skip to main content

Comparison of Patients’ Ethical Perspectives of Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) vs. Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M)

Reproductive Sciences volume 28, pages 3272–3281 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

What are the ethical perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing in patients using/considering PGT-A compared to those using/considering PGT-M? A 17-item questionnaire administered online was used to assess ethical perspectives in US patients who recently used/considered PGT-A (n=80) vs. those who used/considered PGT-M (n=72). Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, and Fisher exact tests were conducted with STATA. Most PGT-A and PGT-M users/considerers supported using PGT to screen for diseases fatal in childhood (86–89%) and those causing lifelong disabilities (76–79%) and opposed using PGT to screen for non-medical physical (80–87%) or intellectual traits (74–86%). Both groups agreed that PGT aids in parental decision-making, although some expressed concern over its potential to lead to unforeseen consequences for society and the PGT offspring. More PGT-M than PGT-A users/considerers opposed implanting genetically abnormal embryos when requested by parents (29% PGT-A vs. 56% PGT-M, p = 0.007). For embryo disposition, more PGT-A users/considerers favored freezing (95% PGTA vs. 82% PGT-M, p = 0.018) or donating genetically normal embryos to research (73% PGT-A vs. 57% PGT-M, p = 0.044), while more PGT-M users/considerers supported donating embryos with known genetic abnormalities to research (56% PGT-A vs. 81% PGT-M, p = 0.001). Regardless of the reason for using PGT, users generally agreed on the acceptable and unacceptable uses for it, as well as the potential societal impact. PGT-M users/considerers expressed more opposition than PGT-A users/considerers to implanting embryos with a genetic alteration when requested by the parents.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Data Availability statement

All data are available upon request through Dr. Lisa Pastore.

References

  1. Genoff Garzon MC, Rubin LR, Lobel M, Stelling J, Pastore LM. Review of patient decision-making factors and attitudes regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Clin Genet. 2018;94(1):22–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Wilson RD, Audibert F, Brock JA, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(5):451–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brezina PR, Anchan R, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):823–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2015;350:g7611.

  5. Alteri A, Corti L, Sanchez AM, Rabellotti E, Papaleo E, Viganò P. Assessment of pre-implantation genetic testing for embryo aneuploidies: a SWOT analysis. Clin Genet. 2019;95(4):479–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):454–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harper JC, Sengupta SB. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art 2011. Hum Genet. 2012;131(2):175–86.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang J, Boulet SL, Jeng G, Flowers L, Kissin DM. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011-2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):394–400.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Myring J, Beckett W, Jassi R, Roberts T, Sayers R, Scotcher D, et al. Shock, adjust, decide: reproductive decision making in cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier couples--a qualitative study. J Genet Couns. 2011;20(4):404–17.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Winkelman WD, Missmer SA, Myers D, Ginsburg ES. Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(5):665–75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Klitzman R, Thorne D, Williamson J, Chung W, Marder K. Decision-making about reproductive choices among individuals at-risk for Huntington’s disease. J Genet Couns. 2007;16(3):347–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cooper AR, Jungheim ES. Preimplantation genetic testing: indications and controversies. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine. 2010;30(3):519–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Testart J, Sele B. Towards an efficient medical eugenics: is the desirable always the feasible? Hum Reprod. 1995;10(12):3086–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Olesen AP, Nor SN, Amin L. Attitudes toward pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for genetic disorders among potential users in Malaysia. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(1):133–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update. 2012;18(5):485–503.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146(2):138–48.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Voils C, Namey E, Alexander C, Bankowski B, et al. Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):499–509.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Faustini F, Forte M, Capalbo A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. The main will of the patients of a private Italian IVF clinic for their aneuploid/affected blastocysts would be donation to research: a currently forbidden choice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(8):1555–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Katz MG, Fitzgerald L, Bankier A, Savulescu J, Cram DS. Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Prenat Diagn. 2002;22(12):1117–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Van de Velde A, De Lissnyder E, et al. Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(4):896–905.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gebhart MB, Hines RS, Penman A, Holland AC. How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening? Fertil Steril. 2016;105(1):188–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Karatas JC, Barlow-Stewart K, Strong KA, Meiser B, McMahon C, Roberts C. Women’s experience of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: a qualitative study. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2010;30(8):771–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Jones B, Cato S, Parikh R, Thum M-Y, et al. A systematic review exploring the patient decision-making factors and attitudes towards pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and gender selection. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2021;100(1):17–29.

  24. Pastore LM, Rubin LR, SantaBarbara JN, Stelling J, Lobel M. Initial psychometric analysis of novel instruments to assess decisional distress and decisional uncertainty in women who have considered using preimplantation genetic testing. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40(10):1220–1227.

  25. Pastore LM, Cordeiro Mitchell CN, Rubin LR, Nicoloro SantaBarbara J, Genoff Garzon MC, Lobel M. Patients’ preimplantation genetic testing decision-making experience: an opinion on related psychological frameworks. Human Reproduction Open. 2019;2019(4).

  26. Davis J, Pastore LM, Milone G, Persad M, Garretto D, Herrera K. How well do patients clearly understand invasive prenatal genetic diagnostic testing? Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019;133:139S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Milone G, Pastore LM, Davis J, Buckley A, Persad M, Herrera K. How uncertain are patients in regards to invasive prenatal genetic diagnostic testing? Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019;133:124S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rubin LR, Pastore LM, Subramony S, Lobel M, Stelling J. Navigating preimplantation genetic testing decisions in the age of social media: a qualitative study. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(4):e146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pastore LM, Lobel M, Stelling J, Rubin LR. Preimplantation genetic testing patient decision-making: new tools to assess decisional distress and decisional uncertainty. 2017. Genomics and Society: Expanding the ELSI Universe Congress; CT2017.

  30. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(3):377–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K. PGD patients' and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11(4):486–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Haude K, McCarthy Veach P, LeRoy B, Zierhut H. Factors influencing the decision-making process and long-term interpersonal outcomes for parents who undergo preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Fanconi anemia: a qualitative investigation. J Genet Couns. 2016;26(3):640–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Derks-Smeets IA, Gietel-Habets JJ, Tibben A, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Geraedts JP, et al. Decision-making on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis: a challenge for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):1103–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Philippe K, Demyttenaere K, Dom R, et al. The complexity of reproductive decision-making in asymptomatic carriers of the Huntington mutation. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2007;15(4):453–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Alsulaiman A, Al-Odaib A, Al-Rejjal R, Hewison J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Saudi Arabia: parents’ experience and attitudes. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(8):753–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. van Rij MC, de Die-Smulders CE, Bijlsma EK, de Wert GM, Geraedts JP, Roos RA, et al. Evaluation of exclusion prenatal and exclusion preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington’s disease in the Netherlands. Clin Genet. 2013;83(2):118–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McNeill A, Lewis R, Freeth M. Views of adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome on reproductive choices. Am J Med Genet Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.61546.

  38. Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, King LM, Miree CA, Friedman S. Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Fam Cancer. 2009;8(4):441–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Raspberry KA, Skinner D. Negotiating desires and options: how mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions. Social Science & Medicine. 2011;72(6):992–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Raspberry K, Skinner D. Enacting genetic responsibility: experiences of mothers who carry the fragile X gene. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2011;33(3):420–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ioannou L, Delatycki MB, Massie J, Hodgson J, Lewis S. "Suddenly having two positive people who are carriers is a whole new thing" - experiences of couples both identified as carriers of cystic fibrosis through a population-based carrier screening program in Australia. J Genet Couns. 2015;24(6):987–1000.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Haham LM, Avrahami I, Domniz N, Ries-Levavi L, Berkenstadt M, Orvieto R, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis versus prenatal diagnosis-decision-making among pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. 2018;35(11):2071–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Roberts C, Franklin S. Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: findings from an ethnographic study of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2004;7(4):285–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic defects (PGT-M) for adult-onset conditions: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):989–92.

  45. Spar D. Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):531–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV, Fox JH, Munné S, Ribustello L, et al. The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(9):1641–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. De Krom G, Arens YH, Coonen E, Van Ravenswaaij-Arts CM, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Evers JL, et al. Recurrent miscarriage in translocation carriers: no differences in clinical characteristics between couples who accept and couples who decline PGD. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):484–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, et al. Recent developments in genetics and medically-assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications. Human Reproduction Open. 2017;107(3).

  49. Rosenwaks Z, Handyside AH, Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Paulson RJ, Schattman GL, et al. The pros and cons of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: clinical and laboratory perspectives. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3):353–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. International Federation of Fertility Societies’ Surveillance (IFFS). 2019: Global trends in reproductive policy and practice, 8th Edition. Global Reproductive Health. 2019;4(1):e29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility service use in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982-2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2014(73):1–21.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York (especially Alan Copperman, Taraneh Nazem, and Joseph A Lee) and Island Fertility for communicating our study through their clinics. We thank the National Fragile X Foundation and the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy for communicating our study to their communities. We thank Marci Lobel, PhD, at Stony Brook University for her collaborative work on developing the study questionnaires.

Author information

Author notes

  1. L. M. Pastore

    Present address: Virginia Department of Health, Fredericksburg, VA, 22401, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    J. Zhang

  2. Department of Psychology, The New School for Social Research, New York, NY, USA

    L. R. Rubin

  3. Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    H. Zierhut

  4. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8091, USA

    L. M. Pastore

Authors
  1. J. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. R. Rubin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Zierhut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. M. Pastore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J Zhang substantially contributed to the interpretation of the results, had the lead role in writing the manuscript, drafted the tables, and revised the article. LR Rubin substantially contributed to the conception of the study and interpretation of data and drafted and revised the article for important intellectual content. H Zierhut substantially contributed to the interpretation and clinical significance of the data and revised the article for important intellectual content. LM Pastore conceived and designed this study, substantially contributed to the interpretation of results, drafted the article, and revised it for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. M. Pastore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, J., Rubin, L.R., Zierhut, H. et al. Comparison of Patients’ Ethical Perspectives of Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) vs. Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M). Reprod. Sci. 28, 3272–3281 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00644-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00644-w

Keywords

  • Preimplantation genetic testing
  • Ethics or ethical issues
  • Aneuploidy
  • Monogenic disorders
  • Attitudes