Benefit vs potential harm of genome-wide prenatal cfDNA testing requires further investigation and should not be dismissed based on current data

Prenatal Screening of Chromosomal Anomalies Using Genome-Wide or Target Cell-Free DNA: Preferences and Satisfaction of Pregnant Women

Background/Objectives: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a non-invasive prenatal test used to screen for common trisomies (target cfDNA) that can be expanded to assess all autosomal chromosomes (genome-wide cfDNA). As cfDNA testing gains popularity, it is crucial to examine the factors influencing the decision-making process of pregnant individuals when choosing between these two approaches. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 190 individuals undergoing cfDNA testing for aneuploidy screening, according to the current screening protocol, were allowed to make their own choice between target and genome-wide cfDNA testing. They were asked to complete a first survey at 11-13 weeks, designed to explore their characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction with the prenatal genetic counseling session, as well as a Decisional Conflict Scale. A postnatal survey was administered three months after delivery, including the Decisional Regret Scale and two open questions. Results: 84% of participants opted for genome-wide cfDNA. However, 17% found the decision challenging, and 14% felt that the results might increase anxiety. No significant differences in participant characteristics were found when comparing decisions between genome-wide and target cfDNA. However, significant differences were observed regarding ethnicity (p = <0.001), educational level (p = 0.029), previous cfDNA experience (p = 0.004), and having sufficient information when comparing termination options (p = 0.002). After delivery, only 4% would have changed their decision. Conclusions: Individuals, regardless of their characteristics, prefer genome-wide cfDNA; however, the complexity of the results necessitates enhanced genetic education for prenatal care clinicians.

Test performance and clinical utility of expanded non-invasive prenatal test: Experience on 71,883 unselected routine cases from one single center

OBJECTIVE

The balance between benefits and risks of discordant outcomes makes the Genome-Wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (GW-NIPT) controversial. This study aims to evaluate performance and clinical utility in a wide cohort of unselected clinical cases from a single center when a standardized protocol is applied and integrated with a secondary algorithm for data interpretation.

METHOD

In 2 years, over 70,000 pregnant patients underwent GW-NIPT for fetal common trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal aneuploidies, segmental abnormalities (CNVs ≥ 7 Mb) and microdeletions (CNVs < 7 Mb). All samples were uniformly processed with Veriseq NIPT Solution v2 and analyzed using all data metrics along with a home-made algorithm for sequencing data analysis. Results were retrospectively reviewed for clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 71,883 eligible cases including twin pregnancies, 1011 (1.4%) received a positive result and 781 were confirmed by invasive prenatal diagnosis. Clinical sensitivity ranged from 99.65% for common trisomy (T21, T18, T13) to 83.33% for microdeletions, while specificity remained high (99.98%) for each class of fetal abnormalities detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating a standardized protocol with an internal algorithm allowed discordant results to be reduced, yielding high accuracy. Observed reliability in detecting genome-wide chromosomal conditions reinforced the expanded NIPT utility in clinical practice.

Psychological impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): TRIDENT-2 study

In the Netherlands, genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is offered to all pregnant women as part of the nationwide TRIDENT-2 study. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13, which are called "additional findings", are reported only on request of the pregnant woman. This study examined: (1) women's pre-test perceptions and reasons to opt for additional findings and (2) women's experiences with- and the psychological impact of being informed about an additional finding. A questionnaire, consisting of the anxiety measure State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), distress measure Impact of Event Scale (IES) and questions developed specifically for this study, was retrospectively administered to 402 women who received an additional finding. A total of 227 (56.5%) women completed the questionnaire. Most (60.2%) chose to know additional findings because they wanted as much information as possible about the health of their fetus. Almost all (92%) stated that receiving the additional finding was unexpected, a shock, and/or they were in disbelief, for 85% it caused a lot of worry. Post-test, high anxiety (STAI) levels were reported in 15.5% of women, and 7.5% reported severe distress (IES). Women who gave birth to an affected child (n = 10) experienced most psychological impact (STAI and IES). Eighty-six percent of women with a fetal aberration would opt for additional findings again, compared to 49.2% of women whose result was confined to the placenta. Pre-test counseling should focus on explaining the different results NIPT can generate. Post-test counseling should focus on guiding pregnant women through this uncertain and anxious time.

Experiences of pregnant women with genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing in a national screening program

Pregnant women’s perspectives should be included in the dialogue surrounding the expanding offers of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), especially now that technological possibilities are rapidly increasing. This study evaluated women’s experiences with the offer of genome-wide (GW) first-tier NIPT in a national screening program. A nationwide pre-and post-test questionnaire was completed by 473 pregnant women choosing between targeted NIPT (trisomies 21, 18 and 13 only) and GW-NIPT (also other findings) within the Dutch TRIDENT-2 study. Measures included satisfaction, reasons for or against choosing GW-NIPT, anxiety, and opinion on the future scope of NIPT. Most respondents (90.4%) were glad to have been offered the choice between GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT; 76.5% chose GW-NIPT. Main reasons to choose GW-NIPT were ‘wanting as much information as possible regarding the child’s health’ (38.6%) and ‘to be prepared for everything’ (23.8%). Main reasons to choose targeted NIPT were ‘avoiding uncertain results/outcomes’ (33.7%) and ‘not wanting to unnecessarily worry’ (32.6%). Nearly all respondents received a low-risk NIPT result (98.7%). No differences were found in anxiety between women choosing GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT. Most respondents were favorable toward future prenatal screening for a range of conditions, including life-threatening disorders, mental disabilities, disorders treatable in pregnancy and severe physical disabilities, regardless of their choice for GW-NIPT or targeted NIPT. In conclusion, women who chose first-tier NIPT were satisfied with the choice between GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT, and most women were favorable toward a broader future screening offer. Our results contribute to the debate concerning the expansion of NIPT.

Clinical impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing: Follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study

In the TRIDENT-2 study, all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (GW-NIPT) with a choice of receiving either full screening or screening solely for common trisomies. Previous data showed that GW-NIPT can reliably detect common trisomies in the general obstetric population and that this test can also detect other chromosomal abnormalities (additional findings). However, evidence regarding the clinical impact of screening for additional findings is lacking. Therefore, we present follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study to determine this clinical impact based on the laboratory and perinatal outcomes of cases with additional findings. Between April 2017 and April 2019, additional findings were detected in 402/110,739 pregnancies (0.36%). For 358 cases, the origin was proven to be either fetal (n = 79; 22.1%), (assumed) confined placental mosaicism (CPM) (n = 189; 52.8%), or maternal (n = 90; 25.1%). For the remaining 44 (10.9%), the origin of the aberration could not be determined. Most fetal chromosomal aberrations were pathogenic and associated with severe clinical phenotypes (61/79; 77.2%). For CPM cases, occurrence of pre-eclampsia (8.5% [16/189] vs 0.5% [754/159,924]; RR 18.5), and birth weight <2.3rd percentile (13.6% [24/177] vs 2.5% [3,892/155,491]; RR 5.5) were significantly increased compared to the general obstetric population. Of the 90 maternal findings, 12 (13.3%) were malignancies and 32 (35.6%) (mosaic) pathogenic copy number variants, mostly associated with mild or no clinical phenotypes. Data from this large cohort study provide crucial information for deciding if and how to implement GW-NIPT in screening programs. Additionally, these data can inform the challenging interpretation, counseling, and follow-up of additional findings.

Confined placental mosaicism of trisomy 6 detected through genome-wide NIPT was associated with placental abruption

Confined placental mosaicism (CPM) leads to discordant noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results. We describe a very rare case of CPM of trisomy 6 detected through genome-wide NIPT. This case was associated with placental abruption, which might suggest an association between certain types of CPM detected by NIPT and pregnancy complications.