Abstract
Purpose
The use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) has been increasingly widespread. The challenge of integration of this technology into prenatal diagnosis was the interpretation of results and communicating findings of unclear clinical significance. This study assesses the knowledge and acceptance of prenatal aCGH in Hong Kong obstetricians and pregnant women. The aim is to identify the needs and gaps before implementing the replacement of karyotyping with aCGH. Questionnaires with aCGH information in the form of pamphlets were sent by post to obstetrics and gynecology doctors.
Method
For the pregnant women group, a video presentation, pamphlets on aCGH and a self-administered questionnaire were provided at the antenatal clinic.
Result
The perception of aCGH between doctors and pregnant women was similar. Doctors not choosing aCGH were more concerned about the difficulty in counseling of variants of unknown significance and adult-onset disease in pregnant women, whereas pregnant women not choosing aCGH were more concerned about the increased waiting time leading to increased anxiety. Prenatal aCGH is perceived as a better test by both doctors and patients.
Conclusion
Counseling support, training, and better understanding and communication of findings of unclear clinical significance are necessary to improve doctor–patient experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahn JW, Bint S, Bergbaum A, Mann K, Hall RP, Ogilvie CM (2013) Array CGH as a first line diagnostic test in place of karyotyping for postnatal referrals—results from four years’ clinical application for over 8,700 patients. Mol Cytogenet 6(1):16. doi:10.1186/1755-8166-6-16
American College of O. & Gynecologists Committee on G. (2013) Committee opinion no. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 122(6):1374–1377. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000438962.16108.d1
Bernhardt BA, Kellom K, Barbarese A, Faucett WA, Wapner RJ (2014) An exploration of genetic counselors’ needs and experiences with prenatal chromosomal microarray testing. J Genet Couns 23(6):938–947. doi:10.1007/s10897-014-9702-y
Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, Savage MS, Jackson L, Wapner RJ (2013) Women’s experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med 15(2):139–145. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.113
Gardiner C, Wellesley D, Kilby MD, Kerr B (2015) Recommendations for the use of chromosome microarray in pregnancy. The Joint Committee on Genomics in Medicine (JCGM). http://www.bsgm.org.uk/media/956141/g144_useofcmapregnancy_jun15.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2017
Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, Kilby MD (2011) Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(1):6–14. doi:10.1002/uog.7754
Hillman SC, Skelton J, Quinlan-Jones E, Wilson A, Kilby MD (2013) “If it helps…” the use of microarray technology in prenatal testing: patient and partners reflections. Am J Med Genet A 161A(7):1619–1627. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35981
Jansen FA, Blumenfeld YJ, Fisher A, Cobben JM, Odibo AO, Borrell A, Haak MC (2015) Array comparative genomic hybridization and fetal congenital heart defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45(1):27–35. doi:10.1002/uog.14695
Kan AS, Lau ET, Tang WF, Chan SS, Ding SC, Chan KY, Tang MH (2014) Whole-genome array CGH evaluation for replacing prenatal karyotyping in Hong Kong. PLoS One 9(2):e87988. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087988
Mikhaelian M, Veach PM, MacFarlane I, LeRoy BS, Bower M (2013) Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis: a survey of prenatal genetic counselors’ experiences and attitudes. Prenat Diagn 33(4):371–377. doi:10.1002/pd.4071
Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, Biesecker LG, Brothman AR, Carter NP, Ledbetter DH (2010) Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 86(5):749–764. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.04.006
Saldarriaga W, Garcia-Perdomo HA, Arango-Pineda J, Fonseca J (2015) Karyotype versus genomic hybridization for the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(3):330 e331-310. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.011
Shkedi-Rafid S, Fenwick A, Dheensa S, Wellesley D, Lucassen AM (2016) What results to disclose, when, and who decides? Healthcare professionals’ views on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis. Prenat Diagn 36(3):252–259. doi:10.1002/pd.4772
Stark Z, Gillam L, Walker SP, McGillivray G (2013) Ethical controversies in prenatal microarray. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 25(2):133–137. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e32835ebb67
van der Steen SL, Diderich KE, Riedijk SR, Verhagen-Visser J, Govaerts LC, Joosten M, Galjaard RJ (2015) Pregnant couples at increased risk for common aneuploidies choose maximal information from invasive genetic testing. Clin Genet 88(1):25–31. doi:10.1111/cge.12479
Walser SA, Kellom KS, Palmer SC, Bernhardt BA (2015) Comparing genetic counselor’s and patient’s perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing. Prenat Diagn 35(9):870–878. doi:10.1002/pd.4624
Westerfield L, Darilek S, van den Veyver IB (2014) Counseling challenges with variants of uncertain significance and incidental findings in prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis. J Clin Med 3(3):1018–1032. doi:10.3390/jcm3031018
Humphrey WM, Griffin EE, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB (2016) Microarray versus karyotype for pregnant women with anomalies found on ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214(1):2
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the medical staff who helped with retrieval of the data retrospectively.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HYHC: protocol/project development, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. ASK: protocol/project development, data collection and manuscript editing. PWH: manuscript editing. CPL: manuscript editing. MHYT: protocol/project development and manuscript editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was not funded.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors received any research grants, owns stocks or is involved in any of the companies. Hiu Yee Heidi Cheng, Anita Sik-yau Kan, Pui Wah Hui, Chin Peng Lee and Mary Hoi Yin Tang declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in the study 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
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, H.Y.H., Kan, A.Sy., Hui, P.W. et al. Bridging the gap from prenatal karyotyping to whole-genome array comparative genomic hybridization in Hong Kong: survey on knowledge and acceptance of health-care providers and pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296, 1109–1116 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4534-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4534-2