20 resultados para genetic testing
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome which predisposes individuals to cancer beginning in childhood. These risks are spread across a lifetime, from early childhood to adulthood. Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene are known to cause the majority of cases of LFS. The risk for early onset cancer in individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is high. Studies have shown that individuals with LFS have a 90% lifetime cancer risk. Children under 18 have up to a 15% chance of cancer development. Effectiveness of cancer screening and management in individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is unclear. Screening for LFS-associated cancers has not been shown to reduce mortality. Due to the lack of effective screening techniques for childhood cancers, institutions vary with regard to their policies on testing children for LFS. There are currently no national guidelines regarding predictive testing of children who are at risk of inheriting LFS. No studies have looked at parental attitudes towards predictive p53 genetic testing in their children. This was a cross-sectional pilot study aimed at describing these attitudes. We identified individuals whose children were at risk for inheriting p53 genetic mutations. These individuals were provided with surveys which included validated measures addressing attitudes and beliefs towards genetic testing. The questionnaire included qualitative and quantitative measures. Six individuals completed and returned the questionnaire with a response rate of 28.57%. In general, respondents agreed that parents should have the opportunity to obtain p53 genetic testing for their child. Parents vary in regard to their attitudes towards who should be involved in the decision making process and at what time and under what considerations testing should occur. Testing motivations cited most important by respondents included family history, planning for the future and health management. Concern for insurance genetic discrimination was cited as the most important “con” to genetic testing. Although limited by a poor response rate, this study can give health care practitioners insight into testing attitudes and beliefs of families considering pediatric genetic testing.
Resumo:
Up to 10% of all breast and ovarian cancers are attributable to mutations in cancer susceptibility genes. Clinical genetic testing for deleterious gene mutations that predispose to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is available. Mutation carriers may benefit from following high-risk guidelines for cancer prevention and early detection; however, few studies have reported the uptake of clinical genetic testing for HBOC. This study identified predictors of HBOC genetic testing uptake among a case series of 268 women who underwent genetic counseling at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from October, 1996, through July, 2000. Women completed a baseline questionnaire that measured psychosocial and demographic variables. Additional medical characteristics were obtained from the medical charts. Logistic regression modeling identified predictors of participation in HBOC genetic testing. Psychological variables were hypothesized to be the strongest predictors of testing uptake—in particular, one's readiness (intention) to have testing. Testing uptake among all women in this study was 37% (n = 99). Contrary to the hypotheses, one's actual risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation was the strongest predictor of testing participation (OR = 15.37, CI = 5.15, 45.86). Other predictors included religious background, greater readiness to have testing, knowledge about HBOC and genetic testing, not having female children, and adherence to breast self-exam. Among the subgroup of women who were at ≥10% risk of carrying a mutation, 51% (n = 90) had genetic testing. Consistent with the hypotheses, predictors of testing participation in the high-risk subgroup included greater readiness to have testing, knowledge, and greater self-efficacy regarding one's ability to cope with test results. Women with CES-D scores ≥16, indicating the presence of depressive symptoms, were less likely to have genetic testing. Results indicate that among women with a wide range of risk for HBOC, actual risk of carrying an HBOC-predisposing mutation may be the strongest predictor of their decision to have genetic testing. Psychological variables (e.g., distress and self-efficacy) may influence testing participation only among women at highest risk of carrying a mutation, for whom genetic testing is most likely to be informative. ^
Resumo:
Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is a hereditary cancer syndrome characterized by tumors of the endocrine system. Tumors most commonly develop in the parathyroid glands, pituitary gland, and the gastro-entero pancreatic tract. MEN1 is a highly penetrant condition and age of onset is variable. Most patients are diagnosed in early adulthood; however, rare cases of MEN1 present in early childhood. Expert consensus opinion is that predictive genetic testing should be offered at age 5 years, however there are no evidence-based studies that clearly establish that predictive genetic testing at this age would be beneficial since most symptoms do not present until later in life. This study was designed to explore attitudes about the most appropriate age for predictive genetic testing from individuals at risk of having a child with MEN1. Participants who had an MEN1 mutation were invited to complete a survey and were asked to invite their spouses to participate as well. The survey included several validated measures designed to assess participants’ attitudes about predictive testing in minors. Fifty-eight affected participants and twenty-two spouses/partners completed the survey. Most participants felt that MEN1 genetic testing was appropriate in healthy minors. Younger age and increased knowledge of MEN1 genetics and inheritance predicted genetic testing at a younger age. Additionally, participants who saw more positive than negative general outcomes from genetic testing were more likely to favor genetic testing at younger ages. Overall, participants felt genetic testing should be offered at a younger age than most adult onset conditions and most felt the appropriate time for testing was when a child could understand and participate in the testing process. Psychological concerns seemed to be the primary focus of participants who favored later ages for genetic testing, while medical benefits were more commonly cited for younger age. This exploratory study has implications for counseling patients whose children are at risk of developing MEN1 and illustrates issues that are important to patients and their spouses when considering testing in children.
Resumo:
Li- Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) is a rare autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome caused by mutations in the TP53 gene that predisposes individuals to a wide variety of cancers, including breast cancer, soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, brain tumors, and adrenocortical carcinomas. Individuals found to carry germline mutations in TP53 have a 90% lifetime cancer risk, with a 20% chance to develop cancer under the age of 20. Despite the significant risk of childhood cancer, predictive testing for unaffected minors at risk for LFS historically has not been recommended, largely due to the lack of available and effective screening for the types of cancers involved. A recently developed screening protocol suggests an advantage to identifying and screening children at risk for LFS and we therefore hypothesized that this alongside with the availability of new screening modalities may substantiate a shift in recommendations for predictive genetic testing in minors at risk for LFS. We aimed to describe current screening recommendations that genetic counselors provide to this population as well as explore factors that may have influenced genetic counselors attitude and practice in regards to this issue. An online survey was emailed to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors (CAGC). Of an estimated 1000 eligible participants, 172 completed surveys that were analyzed. Genetic counselors in this study were more likely to support predictive genetic testing for this population as the minor aged (p
Resumo:
ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING Publication No. _______ Carolyn A. Garby, B.S. Supervisory Professor: Banu Arun, M.D. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome is due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Women with HBOC have high risks to develop breast and ovarian cancers. Males with HBOC are commonly overlooked because male breast cancer is rare and other male cancer risks such as prostate and pancreatic cancers are relatively low. BRCA genetic testing is indicated for men as it is currently estimated that 4-40% of male breast cancers result from a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (Ottini, 2010) and management recommendations can be made based on genetic test results. Risk assessment models are available to provide the individualized likelihood to have a BRCA mutation. Only one study has been conducted to date to evaluate the accuracy of BRCAPro in males and was based on a cohort of Italian males and utilized an older version of BRCAPro. The objective of this study is to determine if BRCAPro5.1 is a valid risk assessment model for males who present to MD Anderson Cancer Center for BRCA genetic testing. BRCAPro has been previously validated for determining the probability of carrying a BRCA mutation, however has not been further examined particularly in males. The total cohort consisted of 152 males who had undergone BRCA genetic testing. The cohort was stratified by indication for genetic counseling. Indications included having a known familial BRCA mutation, having a personal diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer, or having a family history suggestive of HBOC. Overall there were 22 (14.47%) BRCA1+ males and 25 (16.45%) BRCA2+ males. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for the cohort overall, for each particular indication, as well as for each cancer subtype. Our findings revealed that the BRCAPro5.1 model had perfect discriminating ability at a threshold of 56.2 for males with breast cancer, however only 2 (4.35%) of 46 were found to have BRCA2 mutations. These results are significantly lower than the high approximation (40%) reported in previous literature. BRCAPro does perform well in certain situations for men. Future investigation of male breast cancer and men at risk for BRCA mutations is necessary to provide a more accurate risk assessment.
Resumo:
Genetics education for physicians has been a popular publication topic in the United States and in Europe for over 20 years. Decreasing numbers of medical genetics professionals and an increasing volume of genetic information has created a dire need for increased genetics training in medical school and in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess how well pediatrics-focused primary care physicians apply their general genetics knowledge to clinical genetic testing using scenario-based questions. We chose to specifically focus on knowledge of the diagnostic applicability of Chromosomal Microarray (CMA) technology in pediatrics because of its recent recommendation by the International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium as a first-tier genetic test for individuals with developmental disabilities and/or congenital anomalies. Proficiency in ordering baseline genetic testing was evaluated for eighty-one respondents from four pediatrics-focused residencies (categorical pediatrics, pediatric neurology, internal medicine/pediatrics, and family practice) at two large residency programs in Houston, Texas. Similar to other studies, we found an overall deficit of genetic testing knowledge, especially among family practice residents. Interestingly, residents who elected to complete a genetics rotation in medical school scored significantly better than expected, as well as better than residents who did not elect to complete a genetics rotation. We suspect that the insufficient knowledge among physicians regarding a baseline genetics work-up is leading to redundant (i.e. concurrent karyotype and CMA) and incorrect (i.e. ordering CMA to detect achondroplasia) genetic testing and is contributing to rising health care costs in the United States. Our results provide specific teaching points upon which medical schools can focus education about clinical genetic testing and suggest that increased collaboration between primary care physicians and genetics professionals could benefit patient health care overall.
Resumo:
Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is an inherited cancer syndrome that is associated with mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Carriers of BRCA mutations, both men and women, are at an increased risk for developing certain cancers. Carriers are most notably at an increased risk to develop breast and ovarian cancers; however an increased risk for prostate cancer, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers has also been associated with these mutations. In 2009 the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a practice bulletin stating that evaluating a patient’s risk for HBOC should be a routine part of obstetric and gynecologic practice. A survey was created and completed by 83 obstetricians and gynecologists in the greater Houston, TX area. The survey consisted of four sections designed to capture demographic information, attitudes towards HBOC and BRCA testing, utilization of BRCA testing, and the overall knowledge of respondents with regards to HBOC and BRCA testing. This study found that the majority of participants indicated that they felt that obstetricians and gynecologists should have the primary responsibility of identifying patients who may be at increased risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. Moreover, this study found that the majority of participants indicated that they felt comfortable or very comfortable in identifying patients at an increased risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. However, only about a quarter of participants indicated that they order BRCA genetic testing one to two times per month or more. Lastly, this study demonstrates that the overall knowledge of HBOC and BRCA testing among this population of obstetricians and gynecologists is poor. The results of this study stress the need for more education regarding HBOC, genetic testing, and strategies for identifying patients that may be at risk for having a mutation in a BRCA gene. Furthermore, it reiterates the importance of raising awareness to current practice guidelines and recommendations that can assist obstetricians and gynecologist to better identify and manage patients that may be at an increased risk of having HBOC.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: A 24-year-old man presented with previously diagnosed Marfan's syndrome. Since the age of 9 years, he had undergone eight cardiovascular procedures to treat rapidly progressive aneurysms, dissection and tortuous vascular disease involving the aortic root and arch, the thoracoabdominal aorta, and brachiocephalic, vertebral, internal thoracic and superior mesenteric arteries. Throughout this extensive series of cardiovascular surgical repairs, he recovered without stroke, paraplegia or renal impairment. INVESTIGATIONS: CT scans, arteriogram, genetic mutation screening of transforming growth factor beta receptors 1 and 2. DIAGNOSIS: Diffuse and rapidly progressing vascular disease in a patient who met the diagnostic criteria for Marfan's syndrome, but was later rediagnosed with Loeys-Dietz syndrome. Genetic testing also revealed a de novo mutation in transforming growth factor beta receptor 2. MANAGEMENT: Regular cardiovascular surveillance for aneurysms and dissections, and aggressive surgical treatment of vascular disease.
Resumo:
This study aimed to develop and validate The Cancer Family Impact Scale (CFIS), an instrument for use in studies investigating relationships among family factors and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening when family history is a risk factor. We used existing data to develop the measure from 1,285 participants (637 families) across the United States who were in the Johns Hopkins Colon Cancer Genetic Testing study. Participants were 94% white with an average age of 50.1 years, and 60% were women. None had a personal CRC history, and eighty percent had 1 FDR with CRC and 20% had more than one FDR with CRC. The study had three aims: (1) to identify the latent factors underlying the CFIS via exploratory factor analysis (EFA); (2) to confirm the findings of the EFA via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and (3) to assess the reliability of the scale via Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory analyses were performed on a split half of the sample, and the final model was confirmed on the other half. The EFA suggested the CFIS was an 18-item measure with 5 latent constructs: (1) NEGATIVE: negative effects of cancer on the family; (2) POSITIVE: positive effects of cancer on the family; (3) COMMUNICATE: how families communicate about cancer; (4) FLOW: how information about cancer is conveyed in families; and (5) NORM: how individuals react to family norms about cancer. CFA on the holdout sample showed the CFIS to have a reasonably good fit (Chi-square = 389.977, df = 122, RMSEA= 0.058 (.052-.065), CFI=.902, TLI=.877, GF1=.939). The overall reliability of the scale was α=0.65. The reliability of the subscales was: (1) NEGATIVE α = 0.682; (2) POSITIVE α = 0.686; (3) COMMUNICATE α = 0.723; (4) FLOW α = 0.467; and (5) NORM α = 0.732. ^ We concluded the CFIS to be a good measure with most fit levels over 0.90. The CFIS could be used to compare theoretically driven hypotheses about the pathways through which family factors could influence health behavior among unaffected individuals at risk due to family history, and also aid in the development and evaluation of cancer prevention interventions including a family component. ^
Resumo:
Trimethylaminuria (TMAU) or Fish odor syndrome is an autosomal recessive disease that is characterized by pungent body odor with subsequent psychosocial complications. There are limited studies of the sequence variants causing TMAU in the literature with most studies describing only one or two patients and lacking genotype-phenotype correlations. Also to date, there is no laboratory in the US or Europe that offers TMA genetic testing on a clinical basis. We have recently validated genetic testing in the University of Colorado DNA Diagnostic Laboratory. We have a database of a few dozen patients with a biochemical diagnosis of TMA at the University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center (UCDHSC) which includes a few patients with the classical form of the disease. We have used the newly established clinical test in our institution to attempt to characterize the genotype (sequence variants including mutations and polymorphisms) of classical TMAU patients and to establish a genotype-phenotype (biochemical and clinical) association. The questionnaire results confirmed most of the previously reported epidemiological findings of TMAU and also indicated that TMAU patients use multiple intervention measures in attempt to control their symptoms with dietary control being most effective. Despite the complexity of intervention, most patients did not have any medical follow up and there was underutilization of specialist care. In a set of our patients, two deleterious mutations were identified in 4/12 patients including a novel T237P sequence variant, while the majority of our patients (8/12) did not reveal any mutations. Some of the latter were double heterozygous for the E158K and E308G polymorphisms which could explain a mild phenotype while others had only the E158K variant which raised the question of undetected mutations. These results indicate that further experiments are needed to further delineate the full mutational spectrum of the FMO3 gene. ^
Resumo:
Objectives. Previous studies have shown a survival advantage in ovarian cancer patients with Ashkenazi-Jewish (AJ) BRCA founder mutations, compared to sporadic ovarian cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if this association exists in ovarian cancer patients with non-Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA mutations. In addition, we sought to account for possible "survival bias" by minimizing any lead time that may exist between diagnosis and genetic testing. ^ Methods. Patients with stage III/IV ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a non-Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1 or 2 mutation, seen for genetic testing January 1996-July 2007, were identified from genetics and institutional databases. Medical records were reviewed for clinical factors, including response to initial chemotherapy. Patients with sporadic (non-hereditary) ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, without family history of breast or ovarian cancer, were compared to similar cases, matched by age, stage, year of diagnosis, and vital status at time interval to BRCA testing. When possible, 2 sporadic patients were matched to each BRCA patient. An additional group of unmatched, sporadic ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients was included for a separate analysis. Progression-free (PFS) & overall survival (OS) were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were calculated for variables of interest. Matched pairs were treated as clusters. Stratified log rank test was used to calculate survival data for matched pairs using paired event times. Fisher's exact test, chi-square, and univariate logistic regression were also used for analysis. ^ Results. Forty five advanced-stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients with non-Ashkenazi Jewish (non-AJ) BRCA mutations, 86 sporadic-matched and 414 sporadic-unmatched patients were analyzed. Compared to the sporadic-matched and sporadic-unmatched ovarian cancer patients, non-AJ BRCA mutation carriers had longer PFS (17.9 & 13.8 mos. vs. 32.0 mos., HR 1.76 [95% CI 1.13–2.75] & 2.61 [95% CI 1.70–4.00]). In relation to the sporadic- unmatched patients, non-AJ BRCA patients had greater odds of complete response to initial chemotherapy (OR 2.25 [95% CI 1.17–5.41]) and improved OS (37.6 mos. vs. 101.4 mos., HR 2.64 [95% CI 1.49–4.67]). ^ Conclusions. This study demonstrates a significant survival advantage in advanced-stage ovarian cancer patients with non-AJ BRCA mutations, confirming the previous studies in the Jewish population. Our efforts to account for "survival bias," by matching, will continue with collaborative studies. ^
Resumo:
The American Thyroid Association recently classified all MEN2A-associated codons into increasing risk levels A-C and stated that some patients may delay prophylactic thyroidectomy if certain criteria are met. One criterion is a less aggressive family history of MTC but whether families with the same mutated codon have variable MTC aggressiveness is not well described. We developed several novel measures of MTC aggressiveness and compared families with the same mutated codon to determine if there is significant inter-familial variability. Pedigrees of families with MEN2A were reviewed for codon mutated and proportion of RET mutation carriers with MTC. Individuals with MTC were classified as having local or distant MTC and whether they had progressive MTC. MTC status and age were assessed at diagnosis and most advanced MTC stage. For those without MTC, age was recorded at prophylactic thyroidectomy or last follow-up if the patient did not have a thyroidectomy. For each pedigree, the mean age of members without MTC, with MTC, and the proportion of RET mutation carriers with local or distant and progressive MTC were calculated. We assessed differences in these variables using ANOVA and the Fisher’s exact test. Sufficient data for analysis were available for families with mutated codons 609 (92 patients from 13 families), 618 (41 patients from 7 families), and 634 (152 patients from 13 families). The only significant differences found were the mean age of patients without MTC between families with codon 609 and 618 mutations even after accounting for prophylactic thyroidectomy (p=0.006 and 0.001, respectively), and in the mean age of MTC diagnosis between families with codon 618 and 634 mutations even after accounting for symptomatic presentation (p=0.023 and 0.014, respectively). However, these differences may be explained by generational differences in ascertainment of RET carriers and the availability of genetic testing when the proband initially presented.
Resumo:
At issue is whether or not isolated DNA is patent eligible under the U.S. Patent Law and the implications of that determination on public health. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued patents on DNA since the 1980s, and scientists and researchers have proceeded under that milieu since that time. Today, genetic research and testing related to the human breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is conducted within the framework of seven patents that were issued to Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation between 1997 and 2000. In 2009, suit was filed on behalf of multiple researchers, professional associations and others to invalidate fifteen of the claims underlying those patents. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent cases, has invalidated claims for analyzing and comparing isolated DNA but has upheld claims to isolated DNA. The specific issue of whether isolated DNA is patent eligible is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide the case by year's end. In this work, a systematic review was performed to determine the effects of DNA patents on various stakeholders and, ultimately, on public health; and to provide a legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. ^ A literature review was conducted to: first, identify principle stakeholders with an interest in patent eligibility of the isolated DNA sequences BRCA1 and BRCA2; and second, determine the effect of the case on those stakeholders. Published reports that addressed gene patents, the Myriad litigation, and implications of gene patents on stakeholders were included. Next, an in-depth legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and methods for analyzing it was performed pursuant to accepted methods of legal research and analysis based on legal briefs, federal law and jurisprudence, scholarly works and standard practice legal analysis. ^ Biotechnology, biomedical and clinical research, access to health care, and personalized medicine were identified as the principle stakeholders and interests herein. Many experts believe that the patent eligibility of isolated DNA will not greatly affect the biotechnology industry insofar as genetic testing is concerned; unlike for therapeutics, genetic testing does not require tremendous resources or lead time. The actual impact on biomedical researchers is uncertain, with greater impact expected for researchers whose work is intended for commercial purposes (versus basic science). The impact on access to health care has been surprisingly difficult to assess; while invalidating gene patents might be expected to decrease the cost of genetic testing and improve access to more laboratories and physicians' offices that provide the test, a 2010 study on the actual impact was inconclusive. As for personalized medicine, many experts believe that the availability of personalized medicine is ultimately a public policy issue for Congress, not the courts. ^ Based on the legal analysis performed in this work, this writer believes the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate patents on isolated DNA whose sequences are found in nature, because these gene sequences are a basic tool of scientific and technologic work and patents on isolated DNA would unduly inhibit their future use. Patents on complementary DNA (cDNA) are expected to stand, however, based on the human intervention required to craft cDNA and the product's distinction from the DNA found in nature. ^ In the end, the solution as to how to address gene patents may lie not in jurisprudence but in a fundamental change in business practices to provide expanded licenses to better address the interests of the several stakeholders. ^
Resumo:
Despite current enthusiasm for investigation of gene-gene interactions and gene-environment interactions, the essential issue of how to define and detect gene-environment interactions remains unresolved. In this report, we define gene-environment interactions as a stochastic dependence in the context of the effects of the genetic and environmental risk factors on the cause of phenotypic variation among individuals. We use mutual information that is widely used in communication and complex system analysis to measure gene-environment interactions. We investigate how gene-environment interactions generate the large difference in the information measure of gene-environment interactions between the general population and a diseased population, which motives us to develop mutual information-based statistics for testing gene-environment interactions. We validated the null distribution and calculated the type 1 error rates for the mutual information-based statistics to test gene-environment interactions using extensive simulation studies. We found that the new test statistics were more powerful than the traditional logistic regression under several disease models. Finally, in order to further evaluate the performance of our new method, we applied the mutual information-based statistics to three real examples. Our results showed that P-values for the mutual information-based statistics were much smaller than that obtained by other approaches including logistic regression models.
Resumo:
Introduction: First Trimester Screening (FTS) combines maternal age with fetal nuchal translucency (NT) and maternal analytes to identify pregnancies at an increased risk for Down syndrome and trisomy 18. Though the accuracy of this screening is high, it cannot replace the conclusive accuracy of prenatal diagnostic testing (PDT). Since FTS has been available, a decrease in the number of women who pursue PDT has been observed. This study sought to determine if there has been a significant change in the amount of PDT performed in our clinics, if the type of FTS result affects the patient’s decision regarding PDT, and what the patient’s intentions are regarding PDT. Material and Methods: A database review was performed for the two years prior and the two years after the January 2007 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines regarding FTS were issued. We compared the number of women who were AMA and the number of women who were AMA and had PDT between those time periods. We also determined the number of positive and negative FTS results, and determined how many of those patients had PDT. Finally, we surveyed our patients and referring physicians to determine: what the patient understands about FTS, what the patient’s intentions are regarding FTS, and how physicians present the option of FTS to their patients. Results: We determined that there was a 19.6% decrease in the amount of PDT performed when we compared the two time periods at our three specified clinics. Many of our patients were against having PDT prior to their genetic counseling session, but after they received genetic counseling, 76% of our population became open to the possibility of having PDT. Conclusion: Similar to previous studies, we determined that there has been a significant decrease in the number of PDT procedures performed at our clinics, which coincides with the release of the January 2007 ACOG statement regarding FTS. While our patients regarded FTS as a way to gain early information about their pregnancy in a non-invasive manner, they also stated they would use their results as a way to aid in their decision regarding PDT.