Non-invasive prenatal testing: UK genetic counselors' experiences and perspectives

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing integration of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into antenatal practice and public healthcare systems globally raises both significant challenges in standardising service delivery and important ethical questions around routinisation and reproductive autonomy. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing primary empirical research on healthcare professionals' views on and experiences with NIPT.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across four major databases in September 2023 and repeated in December 2024. Studies that reported findings from primary empirical research, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research were included.

RESULTS

Searches returned 65 eligible articles, spanning 38 countries and 1 special administrative region and at least 12 professions. Views on who NIPT should have access to and which conditions should be screened for were influenced by perceived clinical utility. While healthcare professionals acknowledged NIPT as beneficial for supporting reproductive autonomy, concerns were raised about the amount and complexity of information to be conveyed during prenatal counseling and potential pressure to test. Cost was also identified as a significant barrier. Challenges reported during post-test counseling included communicating test failures and gaining information from laboratories. Views on the implications of NIPT for decision-making around abortion and for people with disabilities varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals play a critical role in facilitating the access to and decisions by pregnant people around prenatal genetic testing. Addressing barriers in clinical practice and increasing consistency across and access to clinical guidelines and education resources may support healthcare professionals in supporting reproductive autonomy.

Providing recurrence risk counselling for parents after diagnosis of a serious genetic condition caused by an apparently de novo mutation in their child: a qualitative investigation of the PREGCARE strategy with UK clinical genetics practitioners

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of a child with a genetic condition leads to parents asking whether there is a risk the condition could occur again with future pregnancies. If the cause is identified as an apparent de novo mutation (DNM), couples are currently given a generic, population average, recurrence risk of ~1%-2%, depending on the condition. Although DNMs usually arise as one-off events, they can also originate through the process of mosaicism in either parent; in this instance, the DNM is present in multiple germ cells and the actual recurrence risk could theoretically be as high as 50%.

METHODS

Our qualitative interview study examined the views and reflections on current practice provided by UK practitioners working in clinical genetics (n=20) regarding the potential impact of PREcision Genetic Counselling And REproduction (PREGCARE)-a new preconception personalised recurrence risk assessment strategy.

RESULTS

Those interviewed regarded PREGCARE as a very useful addition to risk management, especially for cases where it revised the risk downwards or clarified that a couple's personalised recurrence risk meets National Health Service thresholds for non-invasive prenatal testing, otherwise inaccessible based on the generic DNM recurrence risk.

CONCLUSION

Participants said it could release some couples requiring reassurance from undergoing unnecessary invasive testing in future pregnancies. However, they regarded mosaicism and PREGCARE as complex concepts to communicate, requiring further training and additional appointment time for pre-test genetic counselling to prepare couples for all the possible outcomes of a personalised risk assessment, including potentially identifying the parental origin of the DNM, and to ensure informed consent.

Prospects for limiting access to prenatal genetic information about Down syndrome in light of the expansion of prenatal genomics

Down syndrome (Trisomy 21) is a mild to moderate intellectual disability. Historically, this condition has been a primary target for prenatal testing. However, Down syndrome has not been targeted for prenatal testing because it is an especially severe illness. The condition was just one that could be easily identified prenatally using the techniques first available decades ago. We are moving into an era in which we can prenatally test for a vast range of human traits. I argue that when we can test for anything, there is no longer any reason to continue targeting Down syndrome. I present an argument based on the value of nondiscrimination. It is justified to set limits on access to prenatal information if the information is going to be used for discriminatory purposes. I use the examples of (1) prenatal testing for misogynistic fetal sex selection, and (2) homophobia-motivated prenatal testing for potential homosexuality, as compelling analogies.

'We would have missed out so much had we terminated': What fathers of a child with Down syndrome think about current non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows early, accurate diagnosis of Down syndrome that has resulted in increased terminations. This qualitative study involved in-depth interviews of fathers of children with Down syndrome about their views on the availability of NIPT. Thematic network analysis revealed that although fathers appreciated an early diagnosis with NIPT, they saw the test as being a predetermined pathway to termination. Fathers felt that expectation to terminate reflects negative societal attitudes towards those with Down syndrome and disability, fearing that NIPT may become a form of eugenics. Fathers retrospectively contrasted these attitudes with the actual reality of raising their children with Down syndrome, which they described as bringing joy to their lives. Findings suggest that although fathers valued NIPT as an information-giving tool that allowed autonomous parental choices about the pregnancy, they believe that it should be accompanied by balanced information about the reality of raising a child with Down syndrome.

Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians

The expansion of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening for a larger and diverse set of genetic variants, in addition for use among the low-risk obstetric population, presents important clinical challenges for all healthcare providers involved in the delivery of prenatal care. It is unclear how to leverage the different members of the healthcare team to respond to these challenges. We conducted interviews with 25 prenatal genetic counselors to understand their experience with the continued expansion of cfDNA screening. Participants supported the use of cfDNA screening for the common autosomal aneuploidies, but noted some reservations for its use to identify fetal sex and microdeletions. Participants reported several barriers to ensuring that patients have the information and support to make informed decisions about using cfDNA to screen for these different conditions. This was seen as a dual-sided problem, and necessitated additional education interventions that addressed patients seeking cfDNA screening, and obstetricians who introduce the concepts of genetic risk and cfDNA to patients. In addition, participants noted that they have a professional responsibility to educate obstetricians about cfDNA so they can be prepared to be gatekeepers of counseling and education about this screening option for use among the general obstetric population.

Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?

BACKGROUND

Implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a highly accurate aneuploidy screening test has raised questions around whether the high uptake may result in more terminations of pregnancies and fewer births of children with Down syndrome (DS).

AIM

The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of NIPT on termination and live birth rates for DS.

METHODS

Literature reporting pregnancy outcomes following NIPT was reviewed. Termination rates were calculated for women with a high-risk NIPT result for DS. Two audits of pregnancy outcomes where NIPT indicated DS were conducted in the United Kingdom and Singapore.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies from the United States, Asia, Europe, and the United Kingdom were included in the review. Live births of children with DS were reported in 8 studies. Termination rates following NIPT were unchanged or decreased when compared to termination rates prior to the introduction of NIPT. Audits found 15 of 43 women in the United Kingdom and 2 of 6 in Singapore continued pregnancies following a high-risk NIPT result.

CONCLUSIONS

Termination rates following the detection of DS by NIPT are unchanged or decreased compared to historical termination rates. Impact on live birth rates may be minimal in settings where termination rates fall. Population-based studies are required to determine the true impact.

Offering non-invasive prenatal testing as part of routine clinical service. Can high levels of informed choice be maintained?

Objectives

To assess rates of informed choice among women offered non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy as part of routine clinical care.

Methods

A cross‐sectional survey was conducted across 6 antenatal clinics in England. Women with a high risk (≥1/150) Down syndrome screening result were offered NIPT, invasive testing, or no further testing. Pretest counselling was delivered as part of routine care by the local maternity team. Women were given a questionnaire containing a measure of informed choice immediately after pretest counselling.

Results

In total, 220 of 247 women completed the questionnaire. Seventy‐six percent were judged to have made an informed choice, a significant decline from our previous study (89.0% vs 75.6%; χ²(2) = 20.2, P < .001). Of those making an uninformed choice, 46% had insufficient knowledge, 19% had not deliberated, and 13% had made a value‐inconsistent decision. Multivariate analysis showed women who were highly educated (OR, 4.33; 95% CI, 1.08‐17.36) or had had screening in a previous pregnancy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.90‐0.65) were significantly more likely to make an informed choice.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the challenges of ensuring informed choice in routine prenatal care where NIPT is not discussed at multiple points, less time is available for counselling, and written consent is not required.

What's already known about this topic?

Non‐invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy is a highly accurate screening test, but concerns exist around potential routinisation.

Previous evidence indicated high levels of informed choice are possible, but this was a tightly controlled research setting.

What does this study add?

Non‐invasive prenatal testing can be offered within routine prenatal care in a way that facilitates high levels of informed choice.

However, the decline in rates of informed choice compared with those in the research setting highlight the challenges of offering non‐invasive prenatal testing in routine prenatal care.

Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal diagnosis among obstetricians in Pakistan, a developing, Islamic country

OBJECTIVES

Stakeholders' views are essential for informing implementation strategies for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Little is known about such views in developing countries. We explored attitudes towards NIPT among obstetricians in Pakistan, a developing, Islamic country.

METHODS

A 35-item questionnaire was distributed and collected at eight events (a national conference and seven workshops in five cities) for obstetric professionals on advances in fetal medicine.

RESULTS

Responses from 113 obstetrician show positive attitudes towards implementation of NIPT: 95% agreed prevention of genetic conditions was a necessity, and 97% agreed public hospitals should provide prenatal screening tests. However, participants also agreed the availability of NIPT would increase social pressure on women to have prenatal screening tests and to terminate an affected pregnancy (53% and 63%, respectively). Most participants would not offer NIPT for sex determination (55%), although 31% would. The most valued aspects of NIPT were its safety, followed by its utility and then accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Participants generally supported the implementation of NIPT but raised concerns about social implications. Therefore, national policy is needed to regulate the implementation of NIPT, and pretest information and post-test genetic counselling are needed to mitigate social pressure and support parents to make informed decisions. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Framework for Unrestricted Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing: Respecting and Enhancing the Autonomy of Prospective Parents

Noninvasive, prenatal whole genome sequencing (NIPW) may be a technological reality in the near future, making available a vast array of genetic information early in pregnancy at no risk to the fetus or mother. Many worry that the timing, safety, and ease of the test will lead to informational overload and reproductive consumerism. The prevailing response among commentators has been to restrict conditions eligible for testing based on medical severity, which imposes disputed value judgments and devalues those living with eligible conditions. To avoid these difficulties, we propose an unrestricted testing policy, under which prospective parents could obtain information on any variant of known significance after a careful informed consent process that uses an interactive decision aid to deliver a mandatory presentation on the purposes, techniques, and limitations of genomic testing, as well as optional resources for reflection and consultation. This process would encourage thoughtful, informed deliberation by prospective parents before deciding whether or how to use NIPW.

Genetic Counseling for Couples Seeking Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Japan: Experiences of Pregnant Women and their Partners

The recent advent of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had a significant impact in the field of prenatal testing. Although reports on pregnant women who used NIPT have accumulated, little is known about the experiences of their male partners. In this study, we assessed the experiences of couples who were expecting a child and undergoing NIPT, with a focus on both the pregnant women and their partners. Questionnaires were administered to 282 participants focusing on their specific experiences at three time points: after pre-test counseling (first visit), when undergoing NIPT (second visit), and when results were received (third visit). Responses were analyzed to assess the differences between pregnant women and their partners. We found that more partners selected "family" as their first information source about NIPT and "my partner" as the first person to request NIPT than did pregnant women (35.6 vs. 5.9 %; p < 0.001 and 19.3 vs.1.5 %; p < 0.001). However, pregnant women more often consulted others including family and friends until undergoing NIPT than their partners (89.1 vs. 54.6 %; p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that it is important to encourage male partners to be actively involved in the NIPT decision-making process. Differences between pregnant women and their partners should be seriously considered when providing genetic counseling.

What Do Parents of Children with Down Syndrome Think about Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)?

This study explores the attitudes of parents of children with Down syndrome towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Three focus groups (n = 16) and eleven individual interviews with Dutch parents (and two relatives) of children with Down syndrome were conducted. Safety, accuracy and earlier testing were seen as the advantages of NIPT. Some participants were critical about the practice of screening for Down syndrome, but acknowledged that NIPT enables people to know whether the fetus is affected and to prepare without risking miscarriage. Many feared uncritical use of NIPT and more abortions for Down syndrome. Concerns included the consequences for the acceptance of and facilities for children with Down syndrome, resulting in more people deciding to screen. Participants stressed the importance of good counseling and balanced, accurate information about Down syndrome. Testing for more disorders might divert the focus away from Down syndrome, but participants worried about “where to draw the line”. They also feared a loss of diversity in society. Findings show that, while parents acknowledge that NIPT offers a better and safer option to know whether the fetus is affected, they also have concerns about NIPT’s impact on the acceptance and care of children with Down syndrome.

A survey on awareness of genetic counseling for non-invasive prenatal testing: the first year experience in Japan

The purpose of this study is to summarize the results from a survey on awareness of genetic counseling for pregnant women who wish to receive non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Japan. As a component of a clinical study by the Japan NIPT Consortium, genetic counseling was conducted for women who wished to receive NIPT, and a questionnaire concerning both NIPT and genetic counseling was given twice: once after pre-test counseling and again when test results were reported. The responses of 7292 women were analyzed. They expressed high satisfaction with the genetic counseling system of the NIPT Consortium (94%). The number of respondents who indicated that genetic counseling is necessary for NIPT increased over time. Furthermore, they highly valued genetic counseling provided by skilled clinicians, such as clinical geneticists or genetic counselors. The vast majority (90%) responded that there was sufficient opportunity to consider the test ahead of time. Meanwhile, women who received positive test results had a poor opinion and expressed a low-degree satisfaction. We confirmed that the pre-test genetic counseling that we conducted creates an opportunity for pregnant women to sufficiently consider prenatal testing, promotes its understanding and has possibilities to effectively facilitate informed decision making after adequate consideration. A more careful and thorough approach is considered to be necessary for women who received positive test results.

The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify how physicians develop their knowledge base and practice patterns regarding noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

METHODS

A survey was used to assess physicians' informational sources and practice patterns regarding NIPT.

RESULTS

While most of the 258 participants acquire knowledge about NIPT from the medical literature or didactic educational programming, 74 (28.7%) cite commercial laboratories as an initial source and 124 (47.8%) as a way to keep current with changes in NIPT. About one-third (n = 94, 36.4%) seek information about ethical issues related to NIPT. Half of the OB/GYN respondents (n = 136, 52.7%) provide pretest counseling; fewer refer to a genetic counselor or maternal fetal medicine specialist (MFM) (n = 94, 34.6%, n = 29, 11.2%, respectively). Pretest counseling content and the comfort with which participants discuss topics pertinent to patients' utilization of NIPT varied between OB/GYNs and MFMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in cff DNA technology emphasize the need for effective strategies for physicians to develop competency and practice patterns regarding NIPT. Study findings speak to the need for effective educational resources for obstetric providers, not just early adopters of NIPT but also for primary OB/GYNs as they serve in the role of the first point of contact for women considering their prenatal testing options. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA for aneuploidy is a highly accurate screening test; however, concerns exist around the potential for routinisation of testing. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a quantitative instrument developed to assess informed choice for Down syndrome screening (DSS). We have validated a modified MMIC for NIPT and measured informed choice among women offered NIPT in a public health service. The measure was distributed to women recruited across eight maternity units in the United Kingdom who had accepted DSS. Construct validity was assessed by simultaneously conducting qualitative interviews. Five hundred and eighty-five questionnaires were completed and 45 interviews conducted after blood-draw (or equivalent for those that declined NIPT). The measure demonstrated good internal consistency and internal validity. Results indicate the vast majority of women (89%) made an informed choice; 95% were judged to have good knowledge, 88% had a positive attitude and 92% had deliberated. Of the 11% judged to have made an uninformed choice, 55% had not deliberated, 41% had insufficient knowledge, and 19% had a negative attitude. Ethnicity (OR=2.78, P=0.003) and accepting NIPT (OR=16.05, P=0.021) were found to be significant predictors of informed choice. The high rate of informed choice is likely to reflect the importance placed on the provision of pre-test counselling in this study. It will be vital to ensure that this is maintained once NIPT is offered in routine clinical practice.

Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to assess global trends in clinical implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), as commercial tests are marketed increasingly worldwide, and to identify potential challenges for current or future use.

METHODS

We surveyed clinicians from 46 countries about the availability of NIPT, their experiences with using NIPT, and their views on clinical, ethical, and legal issues affecting implementation in their countries.

RESULTS

Forty-nine respondents from 28 countries completed the survey. The majority reported that NIPT is available in their country (n = 43) and that they offer NIPT in their current practice (n = 38). Eighteen respondents from 14 countries reported that there are plans to introduce NIPT into routine prenatal care in their country. Test prices varied widely, ranging from $350 to $2900, and several respondents observed that high test prices limited or restricted widespread use of NIPT. Responses varied both across and within countries regarding who is offered NIPT and what the overall screening protocol should be.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a snapshot of current use and experiences with NIPT globally. It also highlights differences in service provision that exists both across and within countries, emphasizing the need for developing national and international implementation guidelines for NIPT.

Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had a profound influence in the field of prenatal diagnosis since the 1997 discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood. Research has progressed rapidly, with clinical data supporting laboratory studies showing that NIPT is highly sensitive and specific for fetal aneuploidy, resulting in marked uptake in the high-risk patient population. The superior accuracy of NIPT compared with conventional screening methods has led to significant decreases in the number of invasive diagnostic procedures, in addition to a concomitant decrease in the number of procedure-related fetal losses. Yet, NIPT has been described as a 'disruptive innovation' due to the considerable changes the technology has commanded on current prenatal screening and diagnostic practices. This review summarizes both institutional and global experience with NIPT uptake, its effect on reducing diagnostic invasive procedures, and the unique challenges that reduced procedural volume may have on physician and trainee proficiency, cytogenetic laboratories, and neonatal outcome.