Genetic Screening and Counseling in Perinatal Medicine: their Implications for Maternal and Fetal Health
Downloads
Genetic screening and counseling are represented as an important part of perinatal medicine for maternal and fetal health, which clarified the importance of prenatal diagnostic techniques and testing in helping to detect significant fetal abnormalities early, where our current study aims to record clinical outcomes and evaluate the impact of genetic screening and counseling on maternal and fetal health.
Furthermore, clinical outcomes in mothers and fetuses were collected from different hospitals in Iraq, during the period from January 2, 2024, to December 25, 2025, during which a total of 87 pregnant women underwent comprehensive fetal screening, testing, and counseling, as it was assessed the outcomes and the mother's psychological state were assessed.
The mean age of the study group was 28.5 years, and the most frequent reason for screening was advanced maternal age (51.7%). The most common screening method was NIPT (69.0%), and abnormalities, mostly Trisomy 21 (53.3%), were found in 17.2% of tests. Genetic counseling affected decisions, with 13.8% choosing to terminate the pregnancy and 69.0% continuing it, and dramatically decreased maternal anxiety levels (7.8 to 4.2, p<0.01). 13.8% of neonates had congenital defects at birth, compared to 86.2% who were healthy. 74.7% of mothers stated that they were "very happy" with therapy, indicating high levels of satisfaction. Where our study concluded that both genetic screening and counseling play an important role in perinatal outcomes, it also notes that they significantly improve maternal and fetal health. Genetic screening and counseling facilitate critical decision-making and improve maternal well-being.
1. Bui, T.H.; Raymond, F.L.; van den Veyver, I.B. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: Should incidental findings arising from prenatal testing always be reported to patients? Prenat. Diagn. 2014, 34, 12–17.
2. Kearney, H.M.; Thorland, E.C.; Brown, K.K.; Quintero-Rivera, F.; South, S.T. American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet. Med. 2011, 13, 680–685.
3. Illes, J.; Kirschen, M.P.; Edwards, E.; Stanford, L.R.; Bandettini, P.; Cho, M.K.; Ford, P.J.; Glover, G.H.; Kulynych, J.; Macklin, R.; et al. Ethics. Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science 2006, 311, 783–784.
4. Underwood, E. Neuroethics. When a brain scan bears bad news. Science 2012, 338.
5. Yang, Y.; Muzny, D.M.; Reid, J.G.; Bainbridge, M.N.; Willis, A.; Ward, P.A.; Braxton, A.; Beuten, J.; Xia, F.; Niu, Z.; et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of Mendelian disorders. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1502–1511.
6. ACOG Committee on Genetics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 442: Preconception and prenatal carrier screening for genetic diseases in individuals of Eastern European Jewish descent. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 114, 950–953.
7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 469: Carrier screening for fragile X syndrome. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 116, 1008–1010.
8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 486: Update on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011, 117, 1028–1031.
9. Gross, S.J.; Pletcher, B.A.; Monaghan, K.G. Carrier screening in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. Genet. Med. 2008, 10, 54–56.
10. Prior, T.W. Carrier screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Genet. Med. 2008, 10, 840–842.
11. Rosenfeld, J.A.; Coe, B.P.; Eichler, E.E.; Cuckle, H.; Shaffer, L.G. Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genet. Med. 2013, 15, 478–481.
12. Girirajan, S.; Rosenfeld, J.A.; Cooper, G.M.; Antonacci, F.; Siswara, P.; Itsara, A.; Vives, L.; Walsh, T.; McCarthy, S.E.; Baker, C.; et al. A recurrent 16p12.1 microdeletion supports a two-hit model for severe developmental delay. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42, 203–209.
13. Veltman, J.A.; Brunner, H.G. Understanding variable expressivity in microdeletion syndromes. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42, 192–193.
14. Pagani, G.; Thilaganathan, B.; Prefumo, F. Neurodevelopmental outcome in isolated mild fetal ventriculomegaly: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014.
15. Christian, S.M.; Koehn, D.; Pillay, R.; MacDougall, A.; Wilson, R.D. Parental decisions following prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidy: A trend over time. Prenat. Diagn. 2000, 20, 37–40.
16. Manning, M.; Hudgins, L. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet. Med. 2010, 12, 742–745.
17. Hillman, S.C.; McMullan, D.J.; Hall, G.; Togneri, F.S.; James, N.; Maher, E.J.; Meller, C.H.; Williams, D.; Wapner, R.J.; Maher, E.R.; et al. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 41, 610–620.
18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Committee Opinion No. 581: The use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 122, 1374–1377.
19. Wapner, R.J.; Martin, C.L.; Levy, B.; Ballif, B.C.; Eng, C.M.; Zachary, J.M.; Savage, M.; Platt, L.D.; Saltzman, D.; Grobman, W.A.; et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 2175–2184.
20. Breman, A.; Pursley, A.N.; Hixson, P.; Bi, W.; Ward, P.; Bacino, C.A.; Shaw, C.; Lupski, J.R.; Beaudet, A.; Patel, A.; et al. Penatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and review of the literature. Prenat. Diagn. 2012, 32, 351–361.
