Abstract
Objectives
This study aims to present the termination of pregnancy (TOP) rates and elucidate the decision-making process following a prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 21 in Turkey.
Methods
This retrospective single-center study was conducted with 146 pregnant women between January 2016 and December 2019 in a tertiary hospital. Data on maternal characteristics, sonographic findings, indications for chromosome analysis, and educational, religious, and economic factors that can influence the parental decision process were collected.
Results
The TOP rate of Down syndrome (DS) in our center was 78.8%. We concluded that maternal age, earlier diagnosis, indication for chromosome analysis, and previous pregnancies had no effect on the TOP decision. On the other hand, not having a minor or a major sonographic sign, employed mothers, middle- and high-income families, and families having a secondary or higher education tended to terminate the pregnancy affected by DS at statistically higher rates.
Conclusions
There are many studies worldwide investigating the TOP preferences for DS. However, there is limited data about TOP rates and influential factors affecting the decision-making process in Muslim countries. This study contributes by clarifying the factors in the decision-making process and elucidating perspectives about TOP in a Muslim country with a unique status: Turkey.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Tepecik Training and Research Hospital Ethical Committee and the registration code is 2019/8-13. The study was conducted with compliance of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
References
1. Deng, C, Yi, L, Mu, Y, Zhu, J, Qin, Y, Fan, X, et al. Recent trends in the birth prevalence of Down syndrome in China: impact of prenatal diagnosis and subsequent terminations. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:311–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4516.Search in Google Scholar
2. Metcalfe, A, Currie, G, Johnson, JA, Bernier, F, Lix, LM, Lyon, AW, et al. Impact of observed versus hypothesized service utilization on the incremental cost of first trimester screening and prenatal diagnosis for trisomy 21 in a Canadian province. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:429–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4082.Search in Google Scholar
3. Natoli, JL, Ackerman, DL, McDermott, S, Edwards, JG. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995-2011). Prenat Diagn 2012;32:142–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2910.Search in Google Scholar
4. Balkan, M, Kalkanli, S, Akbas, H, Yalinkaya, A, Alp, MN, Budak, T. Parental decisions regarding a prenatally detected fetal chromosomal abnormality and the impact of genetic counseling: an analysis of 38 cases with aneuploidy in Southeast Turkey. J Genet Counsel 2010;19:241–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9275-3.Search in Google Scholar
5. El-Beshlawy, A, El-Shekha, A, Momtaz, M, Said, F, Hamdy, M, Osman, O, et al. Prenatal diagnosis for thalassaemia in Egypt: what changed parents’ attitude?. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:777–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.3901.Search in Google Scholar
6. Hessini, L. Abortion and islam: policies and practice in the Middle East and North Africa. Reprod Health Matters 2007;15:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-8080(06)29279-6.Search in Google Scholar
7. Samadirad, B, Khamnian, Z, Hosseini, MB, Dastgiri, S. Congenital anomalies and termination of pregnancy in Iran. J of Preg 2012;2012:574513. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/574513.Search in Google Scholar
8. Shaffer, BL, Caughey, AB, Norton, ME. Variation in the decision to terminate pregnancy in the setting of fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:667–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1462.Search in Google Scholar
9. Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Shahbari, NA. Decision-making on terminating pregnancy for Muslim Arab women pregnant with fetuses with congenital anomalies: maternal affect and doctor-patient communication. Reprod Health 2017;14:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0312-7.Search in Google Scholar
10. Prenatal care management guide: Turkish Ministry of Health. Ankara: Turkish Ministry of Health; 2014. Available from: https://sbu.saglik.gov.tr/Ekutuphane/kitaplar/dogumonubakim.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
11. Committee Opinion No. 545. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1532–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000423819.85283.f4.Search in Google Scholar
12. Bethune, M. Literature review and suggested protocol for managing ultrasound soft markers for Down syndrome: thickened nuchal fold, echogenic bowel, shortened femur, shortened humerus, pyelectasis and absent or hypoplastic nasal bone. Austrn Radio 2007;51:218–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2007.01713.x.Search in Google Scholar
13. Papp, C, Szigeti, Z, Toth-Pal, E, Hajdu, J, Joo, JG, Papp, Z. Ultrasonographic findings of fetal aneuploidies in the second trimester--our experiences. Fet Diag and Thrpy 2008;23:105–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000111588.Search in Google Scholar
14. Staebler, M, Donner, C, Van Regemorter, N, Duprez, L, De Maertelaer, V, Devreker, F, et al. Should determination of the karyotype be systematic for all malformations detected by obstetrical ultrasound?. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:567–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1187.Search in Google Scholar
15. Sheets, KB, Crissman, BG, Feist, CD, Sell, SL, Johnson, LR, Donahue, KC, et al. Practice guidelines for communicating a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Counsel 2011;20:432–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9375-8.Search in Google Scholar
16. Boyd, PA, Devigan, C, Khoshnood, B, Loane, M, Garne, E, Dolk, H. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;115:689–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.x.Search in Google Scholar
17. Weichert, A, Braun, T, Deutinger, C, Henrich, W, Kalache, KD, Neymeyer, J. Prenatal decision-making in the second and third trimester in trisomy 21-affected pregnancies. J Med 2017;45:205–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0108.Search in Google Scholar
18. Siffel, C, Correa, A, Cragan, J, Alverson, CJ. Prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy terminations and prevalence of Down syndrome in Atlanta. Birth Def Resea Part A. Clin and Mol Tertlgy 2004;70:565–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.20064.Search in Google Scholar
19. Quadrelli, R, Quadrelli, A, Mechoso, B, Laufer, M, Jaumandreu, C, Vaglio, A. Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in a setting where termination of pregnancy is not legally available. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:228–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1651.Search in Google Scholar
20. Hawkins, A, Stenzel, A, Taylor, J, Chock, VY, Hudgins, L. Variables influencing pregnancy termination following prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosome abnormalities. J Genet Counsel 2013;22:238–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9539-1.Search in Google Scholar
21. Perry, S, Woodall, AL, Pressman, EK. Association of ultrasound findings with decision to continue Down syndrome pregnancies. Community Genet 2007;10:227–30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106561.Search in Google Scholar
22. Cicero, S, Dezerega, V, Andrade, E, Scheier, M, Nicolaides, KH. Learning curve for sonographic examination of the fetal nasal bone at 11-14 weeks. J of Ultra in Obsts & Gyn 2003;22:135–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.176.Search in Google Scholar
23. Shamshirsaz, AA, Ravangard, SF, Turner, G, Borgida, A, Janicki, MB, Campbell, WA, et al. Efficacy of the genetic sonogram in a stepwise sequential protocol for down syndrome screening. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:1607–13. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.9.1607.Search in Google Scholar
24. Hume, H, Chasen, ST. Trends in timing of prenatal diagnosis and abortion for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.06.008. 545.e1-4.Search in Google Scholar
25. Roberts, CD, Stough, LD, Parrish, LH. The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. J Spec Educ 2002;36:48–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360010501.Search in Google Scholar
26. Gelman, A, Rosenfeld, EA, Nikolajski, C, Freedman, LR, Steinberg, JR, Borrero, S. Abortion stigma Among low-income women obtaining abortions in western Pennsylvania: a qualitative Assessment. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12014.Search in Google Scholar
27. Bryant, LD, Ahmed, S, Ahmed, M, Jafri, H, Raashid, Y. All is done by Allah’. Understandings of Down syndrome and prenatal testing in Pakistan. Soc Sci Med 1982;72:1393–9. 2011.10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.036Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Zlotogora, J. Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy with an abnormal finding after an invasive prenatal test. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:1102–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.472.Search in Google Scholar
29. Birth Statistics. Turkish Statistical Institute; 2018. 2019, May 17 [Available from: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30696.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
