Prenatal detection and evaluation of differences of sex development

Ethical concerns surrounding sex prediction using noninvasive prenatal screening from pediatric endocrinologists' perspective

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) with predicted fetal sex chromosomes included in the results has become increasingly available for pregnant individuals. Predicted fetal sex chromosome results from NIPS are interpreted so as to equate sex chromosomes with sex and gender. As pediatric endocrinologists, we worry about how this use of NIPS harmfully reinforces sex and gender binaries and sets potentially inaccurate assumptions about what the identified chromosomes mean. We use a hypothetical case based on our clinical experience in which the NIPS report of fetal sex does not conform to expectations at birth to highlight ethical concerns surrounding this practice. The use of NIPS for fetal sex chromosome prediction has the potential to perpetuate stigma and bring psychological harm to parents and their future children, particularly those who are intersex, transgender, and gender diverse. The medical community should adopt an approach to the use of NIPS for fetal sex chromosome prediction that recognizes the spectrums of sex and gender to avoid reproducing stigma towards sex- and gender-diverse individuals and associated harms.

Navigation of Prenatal Care With Sex Discordance Between Cell-free DNA and Ultrasound Findings

The utilization of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has expanded rapidly across the age spectrum of pregnant persons. With cfDNA's widespread adoption, genetic fetal sex is now often known before a phenotypic assessment on anatomic survey. CfDNA detects sex discordance in 1/1500 to 2000 pregnancies. Upon detection of sex discordance, lab error or other factors should first be assessed. Once other causes have been ruled out, this may indicate an underlying disorder/difference in sex development. A multidisciplinary team should coordinate diagnosis, treatment, and support for the family. This review discusses the diagnostic workup, emphasizing the multidisciplinary counseling and management of disorder/differences in sex development.

Differences of sexual development: genetic counseling considerations in the prenatal setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the rapid adoption of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS), predictive fetal sex information is available early in pregnancy. This information can conflict with the results of other prenatal tests such as fetal ultrasound or diagnostic testing and raise the possibility of a fetal difference of sexual development (DSD). In this review, we describe recent studies examining the counseling and outcomes of prenatally suspected DSD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Discordance in prenatal genetic testing results can cause confusion and anxiety in families as expectations of testing are not often discussed in detail prior to testing. There are no established guidelines for the counseling or management of such situations.

SUMMARY

We present case vignettes to highlight relevant counseling points and considerations to aid in the development of guidelines and best practices in the management of DSD in the prenatal setting.

Prenatal ultrasound finding of atypical genitalia: Counseling, genetic testing and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To report uptake of genetic counseling (GC) and prenatal genetic testing after the finding of atypical genitalia on prenatal ultrasound (US) and the clinical and genetic findings of these pregnancies.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study (2017-2019) of atypical fetal genitalia in a large expert center for disorders/differences of sex development. We describe counseling aspects, invasive prenatal testing, genetic and clinical outcome of fetuses apparently without [group 1, n = 22 (38%)] or with [group 2, n = 36 (62%)] additional anomalies on US.

RESULTS

In group 1, 86% of parents opted for GC versus 72% in group 2, and respectively 58% and 15% of these parents refrained from invasive testing. Atypical genitalia were postnatally confirmed in 91% (group 1) and 64% (group 2), indicating a high rate of false positive US diagnosis of ambiguous genitalia. Four genetic diagnoses were established in group 1 (18%) and 10 in group 2 (28%). The total genetic diagnostic yield was 24%. No terminations of pregnancy occurred in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

For optimal care, referral for an expert fetal US scan, GC and invasive diagnostics including broad testing should be offered after prenatal detection of isolated atypical genitalia.

Prenatal Detection and Evaluation of Differences of Sex Development: A Qualitative Interview Study of Parental Perspectives and Unmet Needs

Objectives

Prenatal diagnoses of differences of sex development (DSD) are increasing due to availability of cell‐free DNA screening (cell‐free DNA screening (cfDNA)). This study explores first‐hand experiences of parents whose children had prenatal findings of DSD.

Methods

Eligible parents were identified through chart review at a pediatric center and interviewed about their prenatal evaluation, decision making, informational sources, and support systems. Interviews were coded using a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Parents also completed quantitative measures of decisional regret.

Results

Seventeen parents (13 mothers; 4 fathers) of 13 children (with 7 DSD diagnoses) were recruited. Four children had discordance between sex predicted by cfDNA versus prenatal ultrasound, and 2 had non‐binary appearing (atypical) genitalia on prenatal ultrasound. Of these 6, 3 were not offered additional prenatal testing or counseling.

Most parents described tension between obtaining support through disclosure of their child's diagnosis and preserving their child's autonomy/privacy, highlighting the need for mental health support.

Conclusion

This is the first study to gather qualitative data from parents whose children had prenatal findings of DSD. We identified multiple targets for intervention to improve care for patients with DSD across the lifespan, including improvements in clinician education, pre‐ and post‐test counseling, and patient education materials.

What's already known about this topic? What does this study add?

Prenatal detection of potential differences of sex development (DSD) is increasing as the availability of non‐invasive prenatal screening increases.

Algorithms have been developed for the diagnostic evaluation, but little is known about the psychosocial implications of that process.

This study focuses on the first‐hand experiences of families whose children had prenatal findings of a potential DSD, to identify existing sources of support and information, and areas for future improvement.

Impact of cell-free DNA screening on parental knowledge of fetal sex and disorders of sex development

OBJECTIVE

Discrepancies between cfDNA and ultrasound predicted fetal sex occur, possibly indicating disorders/differences of sex development (DSDs). Among expectant/recent parents, this study assessed cfDNA knowledge/use, fetal sex determination attitudes/behaviors, general knowledge of DSD, and possible psychological impact of discrepancy between fetal sex on cfDNA and ultrasound.

METHOD

Parents were surveyed about fetal sex determination methods, knowledge of cfDNA and DSD, distress related to possible cfDNA inaccuracy.

RESULTS

Of 916 respondents, 44% were aware of possible discrepancy between cfDNA and ultrasound, 22% were aware of DSD. 78% and 75% would be upset and worried, respectively, with results showing fetal sex discrepancy. Most (67%) revealed predicted fetal sex before delivery. 38% were offered cfDNA. Of those revealing fetal sex, 24% used cfDNA results, 71% ultrasound, and 7% both. cfDNA users were more frequently aware of possible discrepancy between cfDNA and ultrasound (76% vs 41%, P < .0001), but not of DSD (29% vs 23%, P = .29).

CONCLUSION

Fetal sex determination is favored, and cfDNA is frequently used for predicting fetal chromosomal sex. Many parents are unaware of possible discrepancies between cfDNA and ultrasound, and potential for DSD. Most would be distressed by discordant results. Accurate counseling regarding limitations cfDNA for fetal sex determination is needed.

Case Report: Prenatal Genetic Counseling to Parents of Fetuses Suspected of Having Ambiguous Genitalia

The occurrence of fetuses suspected of having ambiguous genitalia will likely increase in the future. Currently, the impact of prenatal genetic counseling on parents' understanding and psychological preparedness has not been addressed. We provided prenatal genetic counseling to parents of two fetuses suspected of ambiguous genitalia. Case 1: At 22 weeks of gestation, swelling of the labia majora, and a clitoris-like structure were noted despite 46,XY detected in amniotic fluid cells. Case 2: At 28 weeks of gestation, bladder exstrophy and a scrotum-like structure were noted. At 32 weeks (Case 1) and 37 weeks (Case 2) of gestation, we shared information with parents regarding the possible difficulty of legal sex assignment at birth, and a scenario for registration of the birth certificate. At birth, both babies presented with ambiguous genitalia. For both cases, the parents remained calm on seeing their baby's genitalia for the first time. After a month, we shared medical information with parents, including karyotype, testosterone production capacity, and surgical schedule. In both cases parents assigned their respective baby's legal sex as male. Several months later, parents were questioned on prenatal genetic counseling. Case 1: Mother, "I was prepared to address our baby's genitalia calmly." Father, "I understood the procedure of legal sex assignment." Case 2: Mother, "Without counseling, I would have been more upset and worried." Father, "We were assured that multidisciplinary experts would support us." Prenatal genetic counseling provides reassurance to parents, who remain informed and emotionally secure throughout the legal sex assignment of their child.