Neurofibromatosis 1: Analysis of the demand for prenatal diagnosis in a French cohort of 361 patients

The severity of neurofibromatosis 1 and its variable expressivity make prenatal diagnosis appealing. We conducted our research to assess patient characteristics associated with the desire for prenatal diagnosis. Between 1995 and 2004, 361 neurofibromatosis 1 adult patients were interviewed about their desire for prenatal diagnosis. Answers were classified in three groups: (1) ‘no;’ (2) ‘uncertain;’ (3) ‘yes.’ Socio‐demographical and clinical data were analyzed by logistic multinomial regression for their association with the desire for prenatal diagnosis. Male‐to‐female sex ratio was 0.93. Mean age at study ± SD was 33.5 ± 10. Seven four patients (20.5%) would consider prenatal diagnosis; 240 (66.5%) did not; and 47 (13.0%) were uncertain. In multivariate analysis, compared to the ‘no’ group, a longer follow‐up (OR = 1.25 [1.11–1.41]), a younger age at study time (OR = 1.25 [1.11–1.41]), not having child (OR = 2.46 [1.03–5.97]) and a higher educational level (OR = 5.07 [1.05–24.47]) were independently associated with the ‘yes’ group. Compared to the ‘no’ group individuals who were in the ‘uncertain’ groups were younger (0.95 [0.90–0.99]), less often married (0.11 [0.01–0.89]) and had a longer follow‐up (1.26 [1.09–1.46]). There is a significant demand for prenatal diagnosis among neurofibromatosis 1 French patients. This demand is associated with individuals who are younger, have no child, have a longer follow up, and higher level of education. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  J. Bernard,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1: sonographic and MRI findings , 2006, Prenatal diagnosis.

[2]  P. Devroey,et al.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for neurofibromatosis type 1. , 2005, Molecular human reproduction.

[3]  K. Schoendorf,et al.  Comparison of the use of amniocentesis in two countries with different policies for prenatal testing: the case of France and the United States , 2005, Prenatal diagnosis.

[4]  H. Cuckle,et al.  Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[5]  F. Goffinet,et al.  A population‐based evaluation of the impact of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome in France, 1981–2000 , 2004, BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[6]  J Gabbay,et al.  Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[7]  K. Khosrotehrani,et al.  Medical management of neurofibromatosis 1: a cross-sectional study of 383 patients. , 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[8]  K. Khosrotehrani,et al.  Clinical risk factors for mortality in patients with neurofibromatosis 1: a cohort study of 378 patients. , 2003, Archives of dermatology.

[9]  A. Leplège,et al.  Quality-of-life impairment in neurofibromatosis type 1: a cross-sectional study of 128 cases. , 2001, Archives of dermatology.

[10]  T. Marteau,et al.  Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing? , 2001, American journal of medical genetics.

[11]  D. Coviello,et al.  The Genoa experience of prenatal diagnosis in NF1 , 2000, Prenatal diagnosis.

[12]  G Mortier,et al.  Exhaustive mutation analysis of the NF1 gene allows identification of 95% of mutations and reveals a high frequency of unusual splicing defects , 2000, Human mutation.

[13]  J. Szudek,et al.  Use of the National Institutes of Health Criteria for Diagnosis of Neurofibromatosis 1 in Children , 2000, Pediatrics.

[14]  P. Nürnberg,et al.  Minor lesion mutational spectrum of the entire NF1 gene does not explain its high mutability but points to a functional domain upstream of the GAP-related domain. , 2000, American journal of human genetics.

[15]  J. Friedman Epidemiology of neurofibromatosis type 1. , 1999, American journal of medical genetics.

[16]  H. Duivenvoorden,et al.  Diagnostic delay in neurofibromatosis type 1 , 1997, European Journal of Pediatrics.

[17]  X. Estivill,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1: From flanking rflps to intragenic microsatellite markers , 1995, Prenatal diagnosis.

[18]  I. Lerer,et al.  Neurofibromatosis type I (NFI) in Israeli families: linkage analysis as a diagnostic tool. , 1994, American journal of medical genetics.

[19]  D. Easton,et al.  An analysis of variation in expression of neurofibromatosis (NF) type 1 (NF1): evidence for modifying genes. , 1993, American journal of human genetics.

[20]  H. Kingston,et al.  Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1): knowledge, experience, and reproductive decisions of affected patients and families. , 1993, Journal of medical genetics.

[21]  A. Paller Neurofibromatosis: Phenotype, Natural History, and Pathogenesis , 1993 .

[22]  J. Friedman,et al.  National Neurofibromatosis Foundation International Database. , 1993, American journal of medical genetics.

[23]  P. Harper,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis and presymptomatic detection of neurofibromatosis type 1. , 1992, Journal of medical genetics.

[24]  Amantadine , 1980, Annals of internal medicine.