Perceptions, motivations and decision regret surrounding preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

STUDY QUESTION Is there a difference in level of decision regret following IVF treatment between those who choose to complete or not complete preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy [PGT-A]? SUMMARY ANSWER Approximately one-third of the participants expressed moderate to severe regret (MSR) following their decision to either complete or not complete PGT-A; notably, decision regret was higher in those who chose not to complete PGT-A, primarily driven by significantly higher regret scores in those that experienced a miscarriage after not testing. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Previous research has found that 39% of participants who completed PGT-A expressed some degree of decision regret and that negative clinical outcomes, such as lack of euploid embryos, negative pregnancy test or miscarriage, were associated with a higher level of decision regret. To date, there are no published studies assessing the possible disparity in decision regret surrounding PGT-A in a population of IVF patients that either chose to pursue PGT-A or not. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An anonymous online survey was distributed to 1583 patients who underwent IVF with or without PGT-A at a single university institution between January 2016 and December 2017. In total, 335 women accessed the survey, 220 met eligibility criteria and 130 completed the full study survey. Six participants were excluded due to refusal of medical record review, and nine participants were excluded after record review due to not meeting eligibility based on cycle start date or completing only embryo banking without attempting transfer. One hundred and fifteen participants were included in the final analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Of the 115 participants included, 55 (48%) completed PGT-A and 60 (52%) did not complete PGT-A. The online survey included four sections: Demographics; Perceptions about PGT-A risks and benefits [scale from 0 (absolutely not true) to 100 (absolutely true)]; Decision-making factors [scale from 0 (not important) to 100 (very important)]; and Brehaut Decision Regret Scale [DRS] [range 0-100, with >25 indicating MSR]. A retrospective chart review was conducted to confirm study eligibility and collect cumulative clinical outcomes of consenting participants who completed the survey. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Demographics of the PGT-A and no PGT-A cohorts were similar, with the majority of respondents being Caucasian or Asian, unaffiliated with any religion and with a graduate or professional degree. The two groups differed significantly in mean age, with the PGT-A group being slightly older (mean SD: 373.7 versus 363.4; P=0.048), and in rate of miscarriages, with fewer participants in the PGT-A cohort experiencing a miscarriage (5% versus 22%; P=0.012). The majority of participants in both PGT-A and no PGT-A cohorts strongly believed in the purported benefits of PGT-A, including that it decreases the risk of birth defects (median 82 versus 77; P=0.046), improves the chances of having a healthy baby (median 89 versus 74; P=0.002) and selects the best embryo for transfer (median 85 versus 80; P=0.049). When asked to report their motivating factors for decision-making, both groups cited physician counseling as important (median 70 versus 71; P=0.671); however, the PGT-A cohort was more strongly motivated by a desire to not transfer abnormal embryos (median 84 versus 53; P=0.0001). Comparison of DRS score between those who did or did not undergo PGT-A showed significantly higher median DRS score after not completing PGT-A (median 15 versus 0; P=0.013). There was a significantly higher proportion of participants who did not complete PGT-A that expressed mild (36% versus 16%) and MSR (32% versus 24%) compared to those who completed PGT-A (chi(2) = 9.03, df=2; P=0.011). Sub-group analyses of DRS scores by outcomes of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth revealed that the higher DRS score in those not completing PGT-A was driven by a large increase in regret noted by those with history of a miscarriage (median 45 versus 0; P=0.018). Multivariate logistic regression modeling found no evidence that any specific demographic factor, clinical outcome or perception/motivation surrounding PGT-A was independently predictive of increased risk for MSR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The retrospective nature of data collection incurs the possibility of sampling and recall bias. As only 59% of eligible respondents completed the full survey, it is possible that mainly those with very positive or negative sentiments following treatment felt compelled to complete their response. This bias, however, would apply to the whole of the population, and not simply to those who did or did not complete PGT-A. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The proportion of participants expressing any degree of decision regret in this PGT-A cohort was 40%, which is comparable to that shown in prior research. This study adds to prior data by also assessing decision regret experienced by those who went through IVF without PGT-A, and showed that 68% expressed some level of regret with their decision-making. These results should not be interpreted to mean that all patients should opt for PGT-A to pre-emptively mitigate their risk of regret. Instead, it suggests that drivers of decision regret are likely multifactorial and unique to the experience of one's personal expectations regarding PGT-A, motivations for pursuing or not pursuing it and resultant clinical outcome. Highlighting the complex nature of regret, these data should encourage physicians to more carefully consider individual patient values toward risk-taking or risk-averse behavior, as well as their own positions regarding PGT-A. Until there are clear recommendations regarding utilization of PGT-A, a strong collaboration between physicians and genetic counselors is recommended to educate patients on the risks and potential benefits of PGT-A in a balanced and individualized manner. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No funding was utilized for study completion and the authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.