ATTITUDES TOWARD AND UTILIZATION OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDY AMONG OB/GYNS

Prenatal diagnosis is traditionally made via invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). However, both procedures carry a risk of complications, including miscarriage. Many groups have spent years searching for a way to diagnose a chromosome aneuploidy without putting the fetus or the mother at risk for complications. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidy became commercially available in the fall of 2011, with detection rates similar to those of invasive procedures for the common autosomal aneuploidies (Palomaki et al., 2011; Ashoor et al. 2012; Bianchi et al. 2012). Eventually NIPT may become the diagnostic standard of care and reduce invasive procedure-related losses (Palomaki et al., 2011). The integration of NIPT into clinical practice has potential to revolutionize prenatal diagnosis; however, it also raises some crucial issues for practitioners. Now that the test is clinically available, no studies have looked at the physicians that will be ordering the testing or referring patients to practitioners who do. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of OB/GYN’s and how they are incorporating the test into clinical practice. Our study shows that most physicians are offering this new, non-invasive technology to their patients, and that their practices were congruent with the literature and available professional society opinions. Those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients would like more literature on the topic as well as instructive guidelines from their professional societies. Additionally, this study shows that the practices and attitudes of MFMs and OBs differ. Our population feels that the incorporation of NIPT will change their practices by lowering the amount of invasive procedures, possibly replacing maternal serum screening, and that it will simplify prenatal diagnosis. However, those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients are not quite sure how the test will affect their clinical practice. From this study we are able to glean how physicians are incorporating this new technology into their practice and how they feel about the addition to their repertoire of tests. This knowledge gives insight as to how to best move forward with the quickly changing field of prenatal diagnosis.

EFFECT OF ANCHORING ON PERCEIVED AMNIOCENTESIS RELATED MISCARRIAGE RISK WITHIN A LATINA POPULATION

Most recognized pregnancies are completed without difficulty, yet there is always a 3-5% background risk to have a child with a birth defect. Amniocentesis, the most common type of prenatal diagnostic test, is used to detect chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome. Amniocentesis is associated with a risk of complications that can lead to a miscarriage, which is typically quoted to be between 1 in 300 and 1 in 500. Amniocentesis uptake rates are typically lowest within the Latina community, and although the factors related to this have been studied before, no specific conclusions have been reached. The general population has a difficult time interpreting risks, as individuals vary in numeracy skills as well as personal factors that can influence risk perception. A recent study by Nuccio (2010) investigated the effect of anchoring, where a patient’s prior knowledge about a subject affects her risk perception, and how it relates to the uptake of amniocentesis within a diverse population in Houston, TX. The effect of anchoring on perceived amniocentesis-related miscarriage risk within the Latina population has not been previously examined. A two-part questionnaire was completed by 96 Latinas receiving prenatal genetic counseling due to an increased risk to have a baby with a chromosome abnormality at various clinics in Houston, TX. The genetic counselor involved in the session completed a separate survey. This population was largely unfamiliar with surveys, risk figures, and prenatal testing. Only one individual was able to quantify the risk associated with amniocentesis prior to the genetic counseling. While the majority of women felt that the risk association with amniocentesis is very low to average, only 7 individuals pursued diagnostic testing through amniocentesis. Most women did not feel like the information gained from an amniocentesis would change the management of their pregnancy and/or they did not believe that their baby had a problem. Women, regardless of ethnicity, deserve individualized genetic counseling sessions that cater to their needs and desires regarding their prenatal care.

First Trimester Screening and its Impact on Uptake of Diagnostic Testing

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.

Development and testing of a procedure for systematically assigning gestational age for clinical and research use

A graphing method was developed and tested to estimate gestational ages pre-and postnatally in a consistent manner for epidemiological research and clinical purposes on feti/infants of women with few consistent prenatal estimators of gestational age. Each patient's available data was plotted on a single page graph to give a comprehensive overview of that patient. A hierarchical classification of gestational age determination was then applied in a systematic manner, and reasonable gestational age estimates were produced. The method was tested for validity and reliability on 50 women who had known dates for their last menstrual period or dates of conception, and multiple ultrasound examinations and other gestational age estimating measures. The feasibility of the procedure was then tested on 1223 low income women with few gestational age estimators. The graphing method proved to have high inter- and intrarater reliability. It was quick, easy to use, inexpensive, and did not require special equipment. The graphing method estimate of gestational age for each infant was tested against the last menstrual period gestational age estimate using paired t-Tests, F tests and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of similar populations, producing a 98 percent probability or better that the means and data populations were the same. Less than 5 percent of the infants' gestational ages were misclassified using the graphing method, much lower than the amount of misclassification produced by ultrasound or neonatal examination estimates. ^

Knowledge and Expectations of Support People in Prenatal Genetic Counseling Sessions

Prenatal genetic counseling patients have the ability to choose from a myriad of screening and diagnostic testing options, each with intricacies and caveats regarding accuracy and timing. Decisions regarding such testing can be difficult and are often made on the same day that testing is performed. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the support people brought to an appointment may have a role in the decision-making process. We aimed to better define this potential role by examining the incoming knowledge and expectations of support people who attended prenatal genetic counseling appointments. Support people were asked to complete a survey at one of seven Houston area prenatal clinics. The survey included questions regarding demographics, relationship to patient, incoming knowledge of the appointment, expectations of decision-making and perceived levels of influence over the decisions that would be made during the counseling session. The majority (79.4%) of the 252 participants were spouses/partners. Overall, there was poor knowledge of the referral indications with only 33.5% of participants correctly identifying the patient’s indication. Participants had even poorer knowledge of testing options that would be offered during the session, as only 17.7% were able to correctly identify testing options that would be discussed during the genetic counseling session. Of participants, just 3.6% said that they did not want to be included in discussions about screening/testing options. Only a few participants thought that they had less influence over decisions related to the pregnancy than over non-pregnancy decisions. Participants who reported feeling like they had a higher level of influence were likely to attend more of the pregnancy-related appointments with the patient. Findings from this study have provided insight into the perspective of support persons and have identified gaps in knowledge that may exist between the patients and the people they choose to bring with them into the genetic counseling session. In addition, this study is a starting point to assess how much the support people think that they impact the decision-making process of prenatal genetic counseling patients versus how much the prenatal patients value the input of the support people.