Prenatal diagnosis for haemophilia: a nationwide survey among female carriers in the Netherlands.

Carriers of haemophilia face difficult choices regarding prenatal diagnosis, but little is known about the determinants that influence their decisions. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of prenatal diagnosis and potential determinants affecting the choice for prenatal diagnosis. A nationwide survey was performed among all women who underwent carriership testing for haemophilia in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2004. Prenatal diagnosis was assessed in 207 carriers of haemophilia A or B who had been pregnant. Prenatal diagnosis was categorized into early first trimester (Y-PCR testing or chorionic villus sampling) often intended to prevent the birth of a child with haemophilia, and into late prenatal diagnosis (amniocentesis or ultrasound assessment) aimed at obstetrical management. Of 207 carriers 112 (54%) underwent prenatal diagnosis. Forty-eight women underwent early prenatal diagnosis and 64 women underwent late prenatal diagnosis. In 26 pregnancies early prenatal diagnosis was positive for haemophilia, and in 18 of these pregnancies termination was opted for. The choice for early prenatal diagnosis was associated with a liberal view towards termination of pregnancy (relative risk (RR) 12.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-51.2), severe haemophilia in the family (RR 20.2; CI 2.7-153.6), absence of a religion (RR 1.9; CI 1.1-3.1) and older age (RR 2.0; CI 1.0-3.9). The choice for late prenatal diagnosis was associated with birth year after 1970 (RR 2.3; CI 1.5-3.5) and a previous child with haemophilia (RR 2.2; CI 1.4-3.4). More than half of all Dutch haemophilia carriers underwent prenatal diagnosis. Several determinants were strongly associated with prenatal diagnosis.

Risk estimation for healthy women from breast cancer families: new insights and new strategies.

Risk estimation in breast cancer families is often estimated by use of the Claus tables. We analyzed the family histories of 196 counselees; compared the Claus tables with the Claus, the BRCA1/2, the BRCA1/2/ models; and performed linear regression analysis to extend the Claus tables with characteristics of hereditary breast cancer. Finally, we compared the Claus extended method with the Claus, the BRCA1/2, and the BRCA1/2/u models. We found 47% agreement for Claus table versus Claus model; 39% agreement for Claus table versus BRCA1/2 model; 48% agreement for Claus table versus BRCA1/2/u model; 37% agreement for Claus extended method versus Claus model; 44% agreement for Claus extended model versus BRCA1/2 model; and 66% agreement for Claus extended method versus BRCA1/2/u model. The regression formula (Claus extended method) for the lifetime risk for breast cancer was 0.08 + 0.40 (*) Claus Table + 0.07 (*) ovarian cancer + 0.08 (*) bilateral breast cancer + 0.07 (*) multiple cases. This new method for risk estimation, which is an extension of the Claus tables, incorporates information on the presence of ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer, and whether there are more than two affected relatives with breast cancer. This extension might offer a good alternative for breast cancer risk estimation in clinical practice.