Cargando…

Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer

The use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for hereditary cancer is subject to on-going debate, particularly among professionals. This study evaluates the attitude towards PGD and attitude-associated characteristics of those concerned: family members with a hereditary cancer predisposition....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lammens, Chantal, Bleiker, Eveline, Aaronson, Neil, Vriends, Annette, Ausems, Margreet, Jansweijer, Maaike, Wagner, Anja, Sijmons, Rolf, van den Ouweland, Ans, van der Luijt, Rob, Spruijt, Liesbeth, Gómez García, Encarna, Ruijs, Mariëlle, Verhoef, Senno
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19642022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9265-5
_version_ 1782173730392244224
author Lammens, Chantal
Bleiker, Eveline
Aaronson, Neil
Vriends, Annette
Ausems, Margreet
Jansweijer, Maaike
Wagner, Anja
Sijmons, Rolf
van den Ouweland, Ans
van der Luijt, Rob
Spruijt, Liesbeth
Gómez García, Encarna
Ruijs, Mariëlle
Verhoef, Senno
author_facet Lammens, Chantal
Bleiker, Eveline
Aaronson, Neil
Vriends, Annette
Ausems, Margreet
Jansweijer, Maaike
Wagner, Anja
Sijmons, Rolf
van den Ouweland, Ans
van der Luijt, Rob
Spruijt, Liesbeth
Gómez García, Encarna
Ruijs, Mariëlle
Verhoef, Senno
author_sort Lammens, Chantal
collection PubMed
description The use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for hereditary cancer is subject to on-going debate, particularly among professionals. This study evaluates the attitude towards PGD and attitude-associated characteristics of those concerned: family members with a hereditary cancer predisposition. Forty-eight Von Hippel-Lindau and 18 Li–Fraumeni Syndrome families were identified via the 9 family cancer clinics in the Netherlands. In total, 216 high risk family members and partners were approached, of whom 179 (83%) completed a self-report questionnaire. Of the high risk family members, 35% expressed a positive attitude towards PGD. Those with a current desire to have children were significantly more likely to have a positive attitude: 48% would consider the use of PGD. No other sociodemographic, medical or psychosocial variables were associated significantly with a positive attitude. The most frequently reported advantage of PGD is the avoidance of a possible pregnancy termination. Uncertainty about late effects was the most frequently reported disadvantage. These results indicate that approximately half of those contemplating a future pregnancy would consider the use of PGD. The actual uptake, however, is expected to be lower. There is no indication that psychosocial factors affect interest in PGD.
format Text
id pubmed-2771132
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27711322009-11-06 Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer Lammens, Chantal Bleiker, Eveline Aaronson, Neil Vriends, Annette Ausems, Margreet Jansweijer, Maaike Wagner, Anja Sijmons, Rolf van den Ouweland, Ans van der Luijt, Rob Spruijt, Liesbeth Gómez García, Encarna Ruijs, Mariëlle Verhoef, Senno Fam Cancer Article The use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for hereditary cancer is subject to on-going debate, particularly among professionals. This study evaluates the attitude towards PGD and attitude-associated characteristics of those concerned: family members with a hereditary cancer predisposition. Forty-eight Von Hippel-Lindau and 18 Li–Fraumeni Syndrome families were identified via the 9 family cancer clinics in the Netherlands. In total, 216 high risk family members and partners were approached, of whom 179 (83%) completed a self-report questionnaire. Of the high risk family members, 35% expressed a positive attitude towards PGD. Those with a current desire to have children were significantly more likely to have a positive attitude: 48% would consider the use of PGD. No other sociodemographic, medical or psychosocial variables were associated significantly with a positive attitude. The most frequently reported advantage of PGD is the avoidance of a possible pregnancy termination. Uncertainty about late effects was the most frequently reported disadvantage. These results indicate that approximately half of those contemplating a future pregnancy would consider the use of PGD. The actual uptake, however, is expected to be lower. There is no indication that psychosocial factors affect interest in PGD. Springer Netherlands 2009-07-30 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC2771132/ /pubmed/19642022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9265-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2009 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Lammens, Chantal
Bleiker, Eveline
Aaronson, Neil
Vriends, Annette
Ausems, Margreet
Jansweijer, Maaike
Wagner, Anja
Sijmons, Rolf
van den Ouweland, Ans
van der Luijt, Rob
Spruijt, Liesbeth
Gómez García, Encarna
Ruijs, Mariëlle
Verhoef, Senno
Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
title Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
title_full Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
title_fullStr Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
title_full_unstemmed Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
title_short Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
title_sort attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19642022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9265-5
work_keys_str_mv AT lammenschantal attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT bleikereveline attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT aaronsonneil attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT vriendsannette attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT ausemsmargreet attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT jansweijermaaike attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT wagneranja attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT sijmonsrolf attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT vandenouwelandans attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT vanderluijtrob attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT spruijtliesbeth attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT gomezgarciaencarna attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT ruijsmarielle attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer
AT verhoefsenno attitudetowardspreimplantationgeneticdiagnosisforhereditarycancer