Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Members of families affected by hereditary cancer are often concerned about passing on risk to offspring. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure performed to identify embryos that inherit mutations placing them at risk for hereditary conditions. Little is known about attitudes toward the use of this technology among individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We sought to determine high risk women’s attitudes. This study is a qualitative examination of comments from women who participated in an online survey regarding knowledge and attitudes of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among individuals affected by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. More than half the respondents held less favorable attitudes about the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for both themselves and others. However, among the women who felt favorable about its usage, the majority said it became a new option for them to pursue parenthood whereas previously they had opted to not have a biological child. The high percentage of respondents who have never heard of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and who were in favor of this technology for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer indicates the need for educational campaigns to increase awareness and provide information about the procedure, access and affordability. Further research is needed to determine how this population would like this information presented to them and how best to instruct health care professionals to present this topic to women who do not know to ask about it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BRCA1/2 :

Breast cancer 1 and 2 genes

HBOC:

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

PGD:

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

IVF:

In vitro fertilization

CVS:

Chorionic villous sampling

FISH:

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

FAPC:

Familial adenomatous polyposis coli

HFEA:

Human fertilization and embryology authority

FORCE:

Facing our risk of cancer empowered

References

  1. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D et al (1994) A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 266(5182):66–71. doi:10.1126/science.7545954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J et al (1995) Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 378(6559):789–792. doi:10.1038/378789a0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. HFEA Choices and Boundaries Report (2006) [cited Sept 15, 2007]; Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Choices_and_boundaries_Report_2006.pdf

  4. Menon U, Harper J, Sharma A, Fraser L, Burnell M, ElMasry K, Rodeck C, Jacobs I (2007) Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 22(6):1573–1577. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem055

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weitzel J, McCaffrey S, Nedelcu R, MacDonald D, Blazer K, Cullinane C (2003) Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis. Arch Surg 138:1323–1328. doi:10.1001/archsurg.138.12.1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman LC, Kramer RM (2005) Reproductive issues for women with BRCA mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 34:83–86. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Staton AD, Kurian AW, Cobb K, Mills MA, Ford JM (2007) Cancer risk reduction and reproductive concerns in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Fam Cancer 7:179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Wilson C et al (2009) Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 91:2361–2368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D et al (1994) A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 266:66–71. doi:10.1126/science.7545954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ogilvie C, Braude P, Scriven P (2005) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis- an overview. J Histochem Cytochem 53:255–260. doi:10.1369/jhc.4B6395.2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lancaster JM, Wiseman RW, Berchuck A (1995) An inevitable dilemma: prenatal testing mutations in the BRCA1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. Obstet Gynecol 87:306–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith KR, Ellington L, Chan AY, Croyle RT, Botkin JR (2004) Fertility intentions following testing for a BRCA1 gene mutation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(5):733–740

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ao A, Wells D, Handyside AJ, Winston RML, Delhanty JDA (1998) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of inherited cancer: familial adenomatous polyposis coli. Genetics 15(3):140–144

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Paek B (2003) Prenatal diagnosis. World J Surg 27(1):27–37. doi:10.1007/s00268-002-6734-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RML (1990) Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 344:768–770

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marik JJ Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. E-Medicine (2005) [cited Nov 26, 2007]; Available from: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3520.htm#section~bibliography

  17. Verlinsky Y, Ginsburg N, Lifchez A, Valle J, Moise J, Strom C (1990) Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 5:826–829

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zitner A (2002) The nation: cloning receives a makeover politics: nuances of language helped reframe the debate and derail an all-out ban in congress. LA Times, p A1

  19. Offit K, Sagi M, Hurley K (2006) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer syndromes. JAMA 296:2727–2730. doi:10.1001/jama.296.22.2727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Testart J, Sele B (1995) Towards an efficient medical eugenics: is the desirable always the feasible? Hum Reprod 10(12):3086–3090

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. (2006) Editorial, the leading edge. Ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer. Lancet Oncol 7(8):611. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70768-9

  22. Simpson JL (2001) Celebrating preimplantation genetic diagnosis of p53 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 3:2–3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hudson K (2002) Public awareness and attitudes about reproductive genetic technology. Genetics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hudson KL (2006) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: public policy and public attitudes. Fertil Steril 85:1638–1645. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Woodsong C, Severy LJ (2005) Generation of knowledge for reproductive health technologies: constraints on social and behavioral research. J Soc Issues 61(1):193–205. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2005.00401.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Braude P (2006) Preimplantation diagnosis for genetic susceptibility. N Engl J Med 355:541–543. doi:10.1056/NEJMp068139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guba EG (1978) Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  28. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dye JF, Schatz IM, Rosenberg BA, Coleman ST (2000) Constant comparison method: a kaleidoscope of data. Qual Rep 4:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shahine LK, Kuppermann M, Davis G, Creasman J, Cedars MI (2008) Patient willingness to participate in a clinical trial with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 89(4):879–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalfoglou AL, Doksum T et al (2005) Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies. Fertil Steril 83:1612–1621. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K (2005) PGD patients’ and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online 11:486–496

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Greendale K, Pyeritz RE (2001) Empowering primary care health professionals in medical genetics: How soon? How fast? How far? Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 106(3):223–232. doi:10.1002/ajmg.10010

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Olsen S (2002) Cancer genetics: information source for patients and families. Cancer Pract 2:323–326. doi:10.1046/j.1523-5394.2002.106004.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wonderlick AL, Fine BA (1997) Knowledge of breast cancer genetics among breast cancer patients and first-degree relatives of affected individuals. J Genet Couns 6(2):111–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Donelle L, Loffman-Goetz L, Clarke JN (2004) Portrayal of genetic risk for breast cancer. Women Health 49(4):93–111

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, RSGPB-07-019-01-CPPB. The work contained within this publication was supported in part by the Survey Methods Core Facility at the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC-CANCONT, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Susan T. Vadaparampil, Lindsey M. King, Cheryl A. Miree & Sue Friedman

  2. College of Medicine, Department of Oncologic Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Gwendolyn P. Quinn & Susan T. Vadaparampil

  3. Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), Tampa, FL, USA

    Sue Friedman

Authors
  1. Gwendolyn P. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan T. Vadaparampil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lindsey M. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cheryl A. Miree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sue Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwendolyn P. Quinn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quinn, G.P., Vadaparampil, S.T., King, L.M. et al. Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Familial Cancer 8, 441–449 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9263-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9263-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation