Non-invasive prenatal testing for everybody or contingent screening?

Improved contingent screening strategy increased trisomy 21 detection rate in the second trimester

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish suitable threshold values for biochemical indicators in low-risk pregnant women who underwent second trimester screening and design strategies for consecutive prenatal testing to increase trisomy 21 detection.

METHODS

This study examined singleton pregnant women who underwent double, triple, or quadruple screening in the second trimester over six years. To obtain adequate detection efficiency for low-risk pregnancies, threshold values for serum biochemical indicators were established, and a cost-effectiveness assessment of the improved contingent screening strategy was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants were included in serum double- (n = 88,550), triple- (n = 29,991), and quadruple-screening (n = 15,004) groups. Threshold values were defined as having a free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (free β-hCG) multiple of the median (MoM) ≥ 2.50, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) MoM ≤ 0.50, or unconjugated estriol (uE3) MoM ≤ 0.70 for low risk. Low-risk pregnancies, comprising 1.35% (988/73,183), 4.45% (1,171/26,286), and 11.91% (1,559/13,085) of the double-, triple-, and quadruple-screening groups, respectively, underwent further non-invasive prenatal screening. In the double-, triple-, and quadruple-screening groups, we detected 11.76% (2/17), 40.00% (2/5), and 66.67% (2/3) of trisomy 21 cases with false negative results, respectively, with the overall detection rates of 85.00% (85/100), 90.63% (29/32), and 95.24% (20/21), respectively, and decreased ratio of overall costs of 5.26%, 16.63%, and 24.36%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing threshold values of AFP, free β-hCG, and uE3 to trigger further non-invasive prenatal screening may increase trisomy 21 detection in pregnancies deemed low risk in the second trimester while reducing the overall costs of screening strategies.

Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is provided in the private and public sectors worldwide as a first- or second-tier test. In England and France, NIPT is fully funded and offered as a contingent strategy with different probability cut-offs (1:150 and 1:1000). These different approaches to define the target population for NIPT have implications for how women experience their antenatal care. The paper explores and compares the perceptions and difficulties of women in England and France who took NIPT as a second-tier screening test. It is based on a semi-structured qualitative interview study with 17 women in England and France conducted between September 2021 and May 2022. The interviews were cross-analyzed using thematic analysis. Our findings show that most women express a preference for the offer of NIPT as a first-line screening test. Some issues with the contingent model, related to the access to information and termination of pregnancy (TOP), the disparities of NIPT uptake, and risks of generating anxiety with combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), could be addressed by a universal strategy for T21, T13, and T18. Nevertheless, this strategy could present some challenges for genetic counseling due to: women's understanding and expectations of NIPT; adequate information and counseling about the scope and limits of NIPT; concerns about the routinization of NIPT in the first-line offer; limitations and uncertainties associated with the provision of expanded NIPT in France; the remaining importance of other screening tests; and associated costs.

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in a national screening program: Lessons learned from the TRIDENT studies

The Dutch NIPT Consortium, a multidisciplinary collaboration of stakeholders in prenatal care initiated and launched the TRIDENT studies. The goal of the TRIDENT studies was to implement non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), first as a contingent (second-tier) and later as a first-tier test, and to evaluate this implementation. This paper describes how NIPT can be successfully implemented in a country or state. Important factors include the significance of forming a consortium and encouraging cooperation among relevant stakeholders, appropriate training for obstetric care professionals, and taking into account the perspectives of pregnant women when implementing prenatal tests. We describe the advantages of high sensitivity and specificity when comparing contingent NIPT with first-tier NIPT. This paper emphasizes the value of pre- and post-test counselling and the requirement for a standardized method of information delivery and value clarification, to assist couples in decision making for prenatal screening.

Clinical strategy study on prenatal screening and diagnostic model for Down syndrome

Exploring efficient and easily implementable prenatal screening strategies aims at birth defect prevention and control. However, there have been limited economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) strategies in China. Furthermore, these studies were predominantly confined to local or geographically proximate provinces and lacked universality and representativeness. This study assesses the health economics of current prenatal screening strategies and NIPS as first-line screening programs, analyzing their efficacy to determine an optimal strategy. From the perspective of health economics, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and single-factor sensitivity were conducted for five different screening strategies using a decision tree model. Among pregnant women aged < 35 years who underwent only one screening for foetal Down syndrome (DS), the detection rate, false positive rate and positive predictive value of NIPS for foetuses with DS were superior to those of the other four serological screening methods. Although applying NIPS as first-line screening method yields the highest efficacy and benefits, it currently lacks cost-effectiveness when compared to serological screening and sequential NIPS screening strategies.

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis: Noninvasive prenatal testing should replace other screening strategies for fetal trisomies 13, 18, 21

This is a written summary of the oral debate presented at the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis annual conference in Edinburgh in 2023. The topic under debate is whether noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free fetal DNA should replace other screening strategies for the detection of fetal trisomies 13, 18, 21. There is no disagreement that NIPT is far more sensitive and has better positive predictive values for identifying trisomies 13, 18, and 21 than traditional screening approaches using biochemical markers and measurement of nuchal translucency. The major issue lies in the potential adverse consequences associated with abandoning traditional screening methods. The source of disagreement stems primarily from whether you consider the role of ultrasound in the context of screening to be strictly for nuchal translucency measurement or whether it should be combined with a fetal anatomy scan. The debate featured two experts who presented evidence in favor of each argument.