Understanding attitudes and behaviors towards cell-free DNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT): A survey of European health-care providers

Disparities in integrating non-invasive prenatal testing into antenatal healthcare in Australia: a survey of healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been clinically available in Australia on a user-pays basis since 2012. There are numerous providers, with available tests ranging from targeted NIPT (only trisomies 21, 18, and 13 +/- sex chromosome aneuploidy) to genome-wide NIPT. While NIPT is being implemented in the public health care systems of other countries, in Australia, the implementation of NIPT has proceeded without public funding. The aim of this study was to investigate how NIPT has been integrated into antenatal care across Australia and reveal the successes and challenges in its implementation in this context.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was conducted from September to October 2022. Invitations to participate were sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the provision of NIPT in Australia through professional society mailing lists and networks. Participants were asked questions on their knowledge of NIPT, delivery of NIPT, and post-test management of results.

RESULTS

A total of 475 HCPs responded, comprising 232 (48.8%) obstetricians, 167 (35.2%) general practitioners, 32 (6.7%) midwives, and 44 (9.3%) genetic specialists. NIPT was most commonly offered as a first-tier test, with most HCPs (n = 279; 60.3%) offering it to patients as a choice between NIPT and combined first-trimester screening. Fifty-three percent (n = 245) of respondents always offered patients a choice between NIPT for the common autosomal trisomies and expanded (including genome-wide) NIPT. This choice was understood as supporting patient autonomy and informed consent. Cost was seen as a major barrier to access to NIPT, for both targeted and expanded tests. Equitable access, increasing time demands on HCPs, and staying up to date with advances were frequently reported as major challenges in delivering NIPT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate substantial variation in the clinical implementation of NIPT in Australia, including in the offers of expanded screening options. After a decade of clinical use, Australian clinicians still report ongoing challenges in the clinical and equitable provision of NIPT.

Financial contribution as reason to opt out of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVE

First trimester non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) provides pregnant women with a reliable, non-invasive method to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In the Netherlands, there is a nationwide prenatal screening program in which pregnant women and their partners are counseled about their options around 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first trimester and second trimester scan are fully reimbursed but the NIPT has an own financial contribution of €175 per participant, irrespective of type of insurance. The arguments for this own contribution are fear of uncritical use of NIPT or routinization. NIPT has a relatively stable uptake of 51%, against over 95% for second trimester anomaly scan. We aimed to explore the effect of this financial contribution on the decision to opt out of NIPT.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a survey among 350 pregnant women undergoing a second trimester anomaly scan in our center, Amsterdam UMC, between January 2021 and April 2022. All pregnant women who declined NIPT in the first trimester, were asked to participate and answered 11-13 questions about the decision-making process, the reasons to opt out and the financial contribution.

RESULTS

Information about NIPT was desired in 92% of women and 96% felt sufficiently informed. Most women took the decision not to perform NIPT with their partner and did not experience difficulties in taking this decision. The most important reason to decline NIPT was: "Every child is welcome" (69%). "The test was too expensive" was answered in 12% and was significantly correlated with lower maternal age. Additionally, one in five women (19%) said they would have done NIPT if it had been for free, which was significantly higher in younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

The own financial contribution plays a role in the decision-making to decline NIPT and partly explains the low uptake in the Netherlands. This suggests that there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. To overcome this inequality, this own contribution should be abandoned. We speculate that this will have a positive effect on the uptake, which will increase to at least 70% and potentially 94%.

Understanding the experiences and perspectives of prenatal screening among a diverse cohort

INTRODUCTION

Rapid advances in prenatal genetic screening technology make it difficult for providers to deliver adequate prenatal counseling. The aim of this study was to understand how prenatal screening educational approaches can meet the needs of patients.

METHODS

Qualitative content analysis was conducted on a diverse population who were interviewed to explore their perceived experiences and preferences for prenatal screening educational delivery.

RESULTS

Twenty-two women from three US sites were interviewed. Participants were racially/ethnically diverse with 22.7% identifying as Black or African American (n = 5), 40.9% as Hispanic (n = 9), and 4.5% as Pacific Islander (n = 1). Four themes were identified: prenatal screening education, prenatal screening decision-making, return of results, and suggestions for creating a decision aid. Most results were consistent with previous research not targeting a diverse population.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that learning style preferences vary between patients and that current methods are not consistently satisfying patient's desire for understanding, particularly with 'high-risk' results, suggesting that a standardized tool could improve knowledge and decrease decisional conflict. This diverse cohort suggested a list and description of each of the testing options offered, information about each condition being screened for, a timeline for the testing and return of results, costs associated, and non-technical language.

Inclusion of sex chromosomes in noninvasive prenatal testing in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA: A survey study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent to which sex chromosomes are included in current noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and the reporting practices with respect to fetal chromosomal sex and sex chromosome aberrations (SCAs), in addition to an update on the general implementation of NIPT.

METHOD

A questionnaire addressing the research objectives was distributed by email to fetal medicine and clinical genetics experts in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA.

RESULTS

Guidelines on NIPT are available in the majority of the included countries. Not all existing guidelines address reporting of fetal chromosomal sex and SCAs. In most settings, NIPT frequently includes sex chromosomes (five Australian states, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, Thailand, USA and 23 of 31 European countries). This occurs most often by default or when parents wish to know fetal sex. In most settings, a potential SCA is reported by stating the risk hereof as "low" or "high" and/or by naming the SCA. Less than 50% of all pregnant women receive NIPT according to respondents from three Australian states, China, Israel, Singapore, Thailand and 24 of 31 European countries. However, this percentage, the genomic coverage of NIPT and its application as primary or secondary screening vary by setting.

CONCLUSION

In most of the studied countries/states, NIPT commonly includes sex chromosomes. The reporting practices concerning fetal chromosomal sex and SCAs are diverse and most commonly not addressed by guidelines. In general, NIPT is variably implemented across countries/states.

Focus on the frontier issue: progress in noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomy from clinical perspectives

The discovery of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood and the rapid development of massively parallel sequencing have revolutionized prenatal testing from invasive to noninvasive. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) based on cffDNA enables the detection of fetal trisomy through sequencing, comparison, and bioassays. Its accuracy is better than that of traditional screening methods, and it is the most advanced clinical application of high-throughput sequencing technologies. However, the existing sequencing methods are limited by high costs and complex sequencing procedures. These limitations restrict the availability of NIPS for pregnant women. Many amplification methods have been developed to overcome the limitations of sequencing methods. The rapid development of non-sequencing methods has not been accompanied by reviews to summarize them. In this review, we initially describe the detection principles for sequencing-based NIPS. We summarize the rapidly evolving amplification technologies, focusing on the need to reduce costs and simplify the procedures. To ensure that the testing systems are feasible and that the testing processes are reliable, we expand our vision to the clinic. We evaluate the clinical validity of NIPS in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Finally, we summarize the application guidelines and discuss the corresponding quality control methods for NIPS. In addition to cffDNA, extracellular vesicle DNA, RNA, protein/peptide, and fetal cells can also be detected as biomarkers of NIPS. With the development of prenatal testing, NIPS has become increasingly important. Notably, NIPS is a screening test instead of a diagnostic test. The testing methods and procedures used in the NIPS process require standardization.

Patient attitudes and preferences about expanded noninvasive prenatal testing

Introduction: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is typically carried out to screen for common fetal chromosomal anomalies, with the option to screen for a wider range of chromosomal changes (expanded NIPT) becoming increasingly available. However, little is known about pregnant patients' attitudes and preferences regarding expanded NIPT. Methods: To address this gap, we surveyed general-risk patients having first-tier cfDNA screening at a private prenatal clinic on their expectations for expanded NIPT. Patients were asked questions regarding their current pregnancy and previous pregnancy history, their opinions on fetal DNA screenings during pregnancy and incidental findings, information and opinions on financial resources for NIPT, as well as socio-cultural questions to determine patient demographics. Results: Of the 200 survey participants, the majority were educated, self-reported as white, had a higher than average income, and reported no aneuploidy risk factors. When asked what information they would like to receive from cfDNA screening, the vast majority of participants wanted all information available that could have an immediate impact on fetal health (88%) or an immediate impact on infant health from birth (82%). Many participants also wanted information that could have a future impact on the child's health or an immediate or future impact on the pregnant woman's own health. Most participants wanted information about the sex of fetus (86%) and common trisomies (71%), with almost half of participants desiring information about rare autosomal aneuploidies and/or all genetic information that may affect the baby. In addition, participants were found to be comfortable screening for conditions that are well-known, influence care during pregnancy, and are treatable. Finally, while most respondents either had insurance coverage for NIPT or were able to afford NIPT out of pocket, the majority of our participants felt that expanded NIPT should be either free for everyone or for those considered high risk. Discussion: Our findings suggest that with appropriate pre-test counseling, pregnant patients may choose NIPT for an expanding list of conditions.

Clinician views and experiences of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening tests in Australia

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) is being increasingly used by expectant parents. Much provision of this test in Australia is occurring in clinical settings where specialised genetic counselling is unavailable, such as general practice. Potential psychosocial consequences from this kind of prenatal genetic screening remain largely unexplored.

AIMS

To explore clinicians' experiences with NIPS for aneuploidy, their perspectives of the benefits and harms of NIPS, clinicians' information needs, and their perceptions of the needs of expectant parents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals (clinical geneticists, obstetricians, genetic counsellors and general practitioners) who request and counsel for NIPS in Australian hospital and private practice settings, conducted between June 2019 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified relating to clinicians' perceptions and experiences of NIPS in their practice: perceived benefits of NIPS, perceived harms of NIPS (with two subthemes: clinical harms and psychosocial harms), financial and equity-related concerns, counselling as a protective buffer against perceived harms, and clinicians' unmet education needs. While clinicians view NIPS as a useful and high-quality screening test, especially for detection of common trisomies, many participants had concerns about how NIPS has been implemented in practice, particularly the quality (and often absence) of pre-/post-test counselling and the routinisation of testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies, microdeletion and microduplication syndromes.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the need for targeted clinician training around NIPS, and for a shared decision-making approach to support expectant parents' autonomous decisions about NIPS.

Health professionals and scientists' views on genome-wide NIPT in the French public health system: Critical analysis of the ethical issues raised by prenatal genomics

In France, since January 2020, laboratories have started to make available genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (GW-NIPT) beyond the three common trisomies (T21, T13 and T18) at the same cost as standard NIPT. With the possible margins for interpretation of the legal framework and in the absence of clear and updated guidelines, health professionals are left with questions about which type of screening offer may be clinically responsible, morally appropriate, and, at the same time, respectful of women’s values and ability to make autonomous choices. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis and understanding of the challenging dimensions of clinical practices in the context of evolving scientific knowledge and techniques in prenatal genomics. In this article, we develop a critical analysis of the arguments and concerns that emerge around the offer of expanded NIPT and are discussed by health professionals and scientists. To achieve this, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals and scientists from September 2021 to February 2022 and a comprehensive literature review (regulatory, scientific, medical, institutional sources). The results of our empirical research highlight the importance of addressing ethical issues related to the differing quality of counselling, the complexity of achieving informed consent, and the avoidance of harm to pregnant women in the feedback of findings beyond T21, T18 and T13. If there is an increase in the provision of GW-NIPT within the French public health system, it will be essential to promote medical practices that respect reproductive choices of women, support their autonomous decision and their understanding of the limitations and uncertainties associated with GW screening. Further research is required to provide an insight into women’s perceptions in order to refine our analysis from the patients’ perspective.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21

Introduction

In accordance with social development, the proportion of advanced maternal age (AMA) increased and the cost of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) decreased.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of NIPT as primary or contingent strategies limited to the high-risk population of trisomy 21 (T21).

Methods

Referring to parameters from publications or on-site verification, a theoretical model involving 1,000,000 single pregnancies was established. We presented five screening scenarios, primary NIPT (Strategy 1), contingent NIPT after traditional triple serum screening higher than 1/300 or 1/1,000 (Strategy 2-1 or 2-2), and age-based Strategy 3. Strategy 3 was stratified, with the following options: (1) for advanced maternal age (AMA) of 40 years and more, diagnostic testing was offered, (2) for AMA of 35-39 years, NIPT was introduced, (3) if younger than 35 years of age, contingent NIPT with risk higher than 1:300 (Strategy 3-1) or 1:1,000 (Strategy 3-2) will be offered. The primary outcome was an incremental cost analysis on the baseline and alternative assumptions, taking aging society, NIPT price, and compliance into consideration. The strategy was "appropriate" when the incremental cost was less than the cost of raising one T21 child (0.215 million US$). The second outcome included total cost, cost-effect, cost-benefit analysis, and screening efficiency.

Results

Strategy1 was costly, while detecting most T21. Strategy 2-1 reduced unnecessary prenatal diagnosis (PD) and was optimal in total cost, cost-effect, and cost-benefit analysis, nevertheless, T21 detection was the least. Strategy 3 induced most of the PD procedures. Then, setting Strategy2-1 as a baseline for incremental cost analysis, Strategy 3-1 was appropriate. In sensitivity analysis, when the NIPT price was lower than 47 US$, Strategy 1 was the most appropriate. In a society with more than 20% of people older than 35 years of age, the incremental cost of Strategy 3-2 was proper.

Conclusion

Combined strategies involving NIPT reduced unnecessary diagnostic tests. The AMA proportion and NIPT price played critical roles in the strategic decision. The age-based strategy was optimal in incremental cost analysis and was presented to be prominent as AMA proportion and NIPT acceptance increased. The primary NIPT was the most effective, but only at a certain price, it became the most cost-effective strategy.

Patients' choices and opinions on chorionic villous sampling and non-invasive alternatives for prenatal testing following preimplantation genetic testing for hereditary disorders: A cross-sectional questionnaire study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate choices of and reasoning behind chorionic villous sampling and opinions on non-invasive prenatal testing among women and men achieving pregnancy following preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for hereditary disorders.

METHODS

A questionnaire was electronically submitted to patients who had achieved a clinical pregnancy following PGT at the Center for Preimplantation Genetic Testing, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark, between 2017 and 2020.

RESULTS

Chorionic villous sampling was declined by approximately half of the patients. The primary reason for declining was the perceived risk of miscarriage due to the procedure. Nine out of 10 patients responded that they would have opted for a non-invasive prenatal test if it had been offered. Some patients were not aware that the nuchal translucency scan offered to all pregnant women in the early second trimester only rarely provides information on the hereditary disorder for which PGT was performed.

CONCLUSION

Improved counseling on the array of prenatal tests and screenings available might be required to assist patients in making better informed decisions regarding prenatal testing. Non-invasive prenatal testing is welcomed by the patients and will likely increase the number of patients opting for confirmatory prenatal testing following PGT for hereditary disorders.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals working in prenatal diagnosis toward expanded non-invasive prenatal testing in China

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in prenatal diagnosis toward expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in China.

METHODS

We conducted a national online survey among HCPs working in prenatal diagnosis, including specialists in prenatal diagnosis and foetal medicine, obstetricians and gynaecologists, nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology, obstetric ultrasound doctors, and technicians in prenatal diagnosis laboratories. A total of 1882 questionnaires were collected, among which 1822 questionnaires met the research criteria and were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

More than 99% of all participants opted for NIPT for trisomies 21, 18, and 13. The rates of support for expanded NIPT for sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, microdeletions and microduplications, and single-gene disorders were 93.9%, 88.6%, 89.4%, and 86.8%, respectively. Specialists in prenatal diagnosis and foetal medicine had greater knowledge but were less likely to support expanded NIPT compared to other participants. Knowledge increased with educational level, whereas support for expanded NIPT decreased with educational level.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 80% of HCPs working in prenatal diagnosis in China expressed support for expanding NIPT to conditions other than common trisomies. The degree of knowledge was negatively associated with the rate of support.

First trimester screening with biochemical markers and ultrasound in relation to non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is often erroneously received as a diagnostic procedure due to its high discriminatory power in the field of fetal trisomy 21 diagnosis (wording: "NIPT replaces amniocentesis"). Already a look at the methodology of NIPT (statistical gene dose comparison of a primarily maternofetal DNA mixture information at selected sites of the genome) easily reveals that NIPT cannot match the gold standard offered by cytogenetic and molecular genetic analysis procedures from the matrix of the entire human genome (origin: vital fetal cells), neither in diagnostic breadth nor in diagnostic depth. In fact, NIPT in fetal medicine in its current stage of development is a selective genetic search procedure, which can be applied in primary (without indication) or secondary (indication-related) screening. Thus, NIPT competes with established search procedures for this field. Here, the combined nuchal translucency (NT) test according to Nicolaides has become the worldwide standard since 2000. The strength of this procedure is its broad predictive power: NT addresses not only the area of genetics, but also the statistically 10 times more frequent structural fetal defects. Thus, NIPT and NT have large overlaps with each other in the field of classical cytogenetics, with slightly different weighting in the fine consideration. However, NIPT without a systematic accompanying ultrasound examination would mean a step back to the prenatal care level of the 1980s. In this respect, additional fine ultrasound should always be required in the professional application of NIPT. NIPT can thus complement NT in wide areas, but not completely replace it.

Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods

OBJECTIVE

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) is increasingly being implemented worldwide. In public health programs, equitable access to healthcare is a fundamental principle which also applies to fetal aneuploidy screening. However, the out-of-pocket costs of NIPT may lead to sociodemographic disparities in uptake of screening. This study assessed whether there is a difference in the uptake of NIPT in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to all other neighborhoods in the Netherlands, where NIPT is implemented in a national screening program (TRIDENT-2 study).

METHOD

NIPT uptake, postal code and age of 156,562 pregnant women who received pre-test counselling for prenatal screening in 2018 were retrieved from the national prenatal screening database. Postal codes were used as a proxy to categorize neighborhoods as being either socioeconomically disadvantaged or other. The out-of-pocket costs for NIPT were €175.

RESULTS

NIPT uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods was 20.3% whereas uptake in all other neighborhoods was 47.6% (p < 0.001). The difference in NIPT uptake between socioeconomic disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas was smaller for the youngest maternal age-group (≤25 years) compared to other age-groups.

CONCLUSION

The variation in uptake suggest underlying disparities in NIPT uptake, which undermines the goals of a national fetal aneuploidy screening program of providing reproductive autonomy and equitable access. This has ethical and policy implications for ensuring fair and responsible implementation of fetal aneuploidy screening.

Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives

Due to the favorable test characteristics of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) in the screening of fetal aneuploidy, there has been a strong and growing demand for implementation. In the Netherlands, NIPT is offered within a governmentally supported screening program as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women (TRIDENT-2 study). However, concerns have been raised that the test’s favorable characteristics might lead to uncritical use, also referred to as routinization. This study addresses women’s perspectives on prenatal screening with NIPT by evaluating three aspects related to routinization: informed choice, freedom to choose and (personal and societal) perspectives on Down syndrome. Nationwide, a questionnaire was completed by 751 pregnant women after receiving counseling for prenatal screening. Of the respondents, the majority (75.5%) made an informed choice for prenatal screening as measured by the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Education level and religious affiliation were significant predictors of informed choice. The main reason to accept screening was “seeking reassurance” (25.5%), and the main reason to decline was “every child is welcome” (30.6%). The majority of respondents (87.7%) did not perceive societal pressure to test. Differences between test-acceptors and test-decliners in personal and societal perspectives on Down syndrome were found. Our study revealed high rates of informed decision-making and perceived freedom to choose regarding fetal aneuploidy screening, suggesting that there is little reason for concern about routinization of NIPT based on the perspectives of Dutch pregnant women. Our findings highlight the importance of responsible implementation of NIPT within a national screening program.

From late fatherhood to prenatal screening of monogenic disorders: evidence and ethical concerns

BACKGROUND

With the help of ART, an advanced parental age is not considered to be a serious obstacle for reproduction anymore. However, significant health risks for future offspring hide behind the success of reproductive medicine for the treatment of reduced fertility associated with late parenthood. Although an advanced maternal age is a well-known risk factor for poor reproductive outcomes, understanding the impact of an advanced paternal age on offspring is yet to be elucidated. De novo monogenic disorders (MDs) are highly associated with late fatherhood. MDs are one of the major sources of paediatric morbidity and mortality, causing significant socioeconomic and psychological burdens to society. Although individually rare, the combined prevalence of these disorders is as high as that of chromosomal aneuploidies, indicating the increasing need for prenatal screening. With the help of advanced reproductive technologies, families with late paternity have the option of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for multiple MDs (MD-NIPT), which has a sensitivity and specificity of almost 100%.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The main aims of the current review were to examine the effect of late paternity on the origin and nature of MDs, to highlight the role of NIPT for the detection of a variety of paternal age-associated MDs, to describe clinical experiences and to reflect on the ethical concerns surrounding the topic of late paternity and MD-NIPT.

SEARCH METHODS

An extensive search of peer-reviewed publications (1980-2021) in English from the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was based on key words in different combinations: late paternity, paternal age, spermatogenesis, selfish spermatogonial selection, paternal age effect, de novo mutations (DNMs), MDs, NIPT, ethics of late fatherhood, prenatal testing and paternal rights.

OUTCOMES

An advanced paternal age provokes the accumulation of DNMs, which arise in continuously dividing germline cells. A subset of DNMs, owing to their effect on the rat sarcoma virus protein-mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling pathway, becomes beneficial for spermatogonia, causing selfish spermatogonial selection and outgrowth, and in some rare cases may lead to spermatocytic seminoma later in life. In the offspring, these selfish DNMs cause paternal age effect (PAE) disorders with a severe and even life-threatening phenotype. The increasing tendency for late paternity and the subsequent high risk of PAE disorders indicate an increased need for a safe and reliable detection procedure, such as MD-NIPT. The MD-NIPT approach has the capacity to provide safe screening for pregnancies at risk of PAE disorders and MDs, which constitute up to 20% of all pregnancies. The primary risks include pregnancies with a paternal age over 40 years, a previous history of an affected pregnancy/child, and/or congenital anomalies detected by routine ultrasonography. The implementation of NIPT-based screening would support the early diagnosis and management needed in cases of affected pregnancy. However, the benefits of MD-NIPT need to be balanced with the ethical challenges associated with the introduction of such an approach into routine clinical practice, namely concerns regarding reproductive autonomy, informed consent, potential disability discrimination, paternal rights and PAE-associated issues, equity and justice in accessing services, and counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Considering the increasing parental age and risks of MDs, combined NIPT for chromosomal aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes as well as tests for MDs might become a part of routine pregnancy management in the near future. Moreover, the ethical challenges associated with the introduction of MD-NIPT into routine clinical practice need to be carefully evaluated. Furthermore, more focus and attention should be directed towards the ethics of late paternity, paternal rights and paternal genetic guilt associated with pregnancies affected with PAE MDs.

Uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening after the introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test: A national population-based register study

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) has shifted the prenatal screening landscape. Countries are exploring ways to integrate NIPT in their national prenatal screening programs, either as a first- or second-tier test. This study aimed to describe how the uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening changed after the introduction of NIPT as a second-tier and as a first-tier test within the national prenatal screening program of the Netherlands.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A population-based register study in the Netherlands, recording uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening. Data from all pregnant women choosing to have the first-trimester combined test (FCT) or first-tier NIPT between January 2007 and March 2019 were retrospectively collected using national registration systems. Uptake percentages for fetal aneuploidy screening (FCT and NIPT) were calculated and stratified by region and maternal age. Statistical significance was determined using trend analysis and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2013 FCT uptake increased from 14.8% to 29.5% (P = .004). In April 2014 NIPT was introduced as a second-tier test for high-risk women after FCT (TRIDENT-1 study). FCT uptake rose from 29.5% in 2013 to 34.2% in 2015 (P < .0001). After the introduction of NIPT as a first-tier test for all women in April 2017 (TRIDENT-2 study), FCT uptake declined significantly from 35.8% in 2016 to 2.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). NIPT uptake increased to 43.4% in 2018. Regionally, NIPT uptake ranged from 31.8% to 67.9%. Total uptake (FCT and NIPT) between 2007 and 2018 increased significantly from 14.8% to 45.9% (P < .0001). However, total uptake stabilized at 46% for both years of TRIDENT-2 (April 2017-March 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in total fetal aneuploidy screening uptake up to 45.9% was observed after the introduction of NIPT. Uptake appears to have stabilized within a year after introducing first-tier NIPT.

Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionized the prenatal screening landscape with its high accuracy and low false positive rate for detecting Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Good understanding of its benefits and limitations is crucial for obstetricians to provide effective counselling and make informed decisions about its use. This study aimed to evaluate obstetrician knowledge and attitudes regarding NIPT for screening for the common trisomies, explore how obstetricians integrated NIPT into first-line and contingent screening, and determine whether expanded use of NIPT to screen for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes (CNVs) was widespread.

Methods

A questionnaire was designed and administered with reference to the CHERRIES criteria for online surveys. Doctors on the Obstetrics & Gynaecology trainee and specialist registers were invited to participate. Medians and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for confidence and knowledge scores.

Results

94/306 (30.7%) doctors responded to the survey. First trimester screening (FTS) remained the main method offered to screen for the common trisomies. 45.7% (43/94) offered NIPT as an alternative first-line screen for singletons and 30.9% (29/94) for monochorionic diamniotic twins. A significant proportion offered concurrent NT and NIPT (25/94, 26.6%), or FTS and NIPT (33/94, 35.1%) in singletons. Varying follow up strategies were offered at intermediate, high and very-high FTS risk cut-offs for Trisomy 21. Respondents were likely to offer screening for SCAs and CNVs to give patients autonomy of choice (53/94, 56.4% SCAs, 47/94, 50% CNVs) at no additional cost (52/94, 55.3% SCAs, 39/94, 41.5% CNVs). Median clinical knowledge scores were high (10/12) and did not differ significantly between specialists (95% CI 10–11) and non-specialists (95% CI 9.89–11). Lower scores were observed for scenarios in which NIPT would be more likely to fail.

Conclusions

Our findings show the diversity of clinical practice with regard to the incorporation of NIPT into prenatal screening algorithms, and suggest that the use of NIPT both as a first-line screening tool in the general obstetric population, and to screen for SCAs and CNVs, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Clear guidance and continuing educational support are essential for providers in this rapidly evolving field.

Genetics, Genomics, and Emergent Precision Medicine 12 Years After the Equine Reference Genome Was Published

The first equine reference genome was completed in 2007 and published in 2009. This major accomplishment has enabled equine science to advance in ways that broadly parallel the transformative impact that genomics has had on many animal species including humans. A conceptual overview of reference genomes, genome annotation, and the major implications for equine science is presented. The relationship between genomic sequencing and the accelerating application of precision P4 medicine is discussed in the context of human and equine patients. Emergent technologies built on the foundation of genomic sequencing and rapidly gaining traction in research and clinical settings are introduced.

Strategy for Use of Genome-Wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Rare Autosomal Aneuploidies and Unbalanced Structural Chromosomal Anomalies

Atypical fetal chromosomal anomalies are more frequent than previously recognized and can affect fetal development. We propose a screening strategy for a genome-wide non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) to detect these atypical chromosomal anomalies (ACAs). Two sample cohorts were tested. Assay performances were determined using Cohort A, which consisted of 192 biobanked plasma samples—42 with ACAs, and 150 without. The rate of additional invasive diagnostic procedures was determined using Cohort B, which consisted of 3097 pregnant women referred for routine NIPT. Of the 192 samples in Cohort A, there were four initial test failures and six discordant calls; overall sensitivity was 88.1% (37/42; CI 75.00–94.81) and specificity was 99.3% (145/146; CI 96.22–99.88). In Cohort B, there were 90 first-pass failures (2.9%). The rate of positive results indicating an anomaly was 1.2% (36/3007) and 0.57% (17/3007) when limited to significant unbalanced chromosomal anomalies and trisomies 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 22. These results show that genome-wide NIPT can screen for ACAs with an acceptable sensitivity and a small increase in invasive testing, particularly for women with increased risk following maternal serum screening and by limiting screening to structural anomalies and the most clinically meaningful trisomies.

Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can determine the sex of the fetus very accurately and very early in gestation. There are concerns that the ease, timing, and accuracy of NIPT sex determination will facilitate sex-selective termination of pregnancy (TOP). Here, we review current practices, the evidence for a link between NIPT and sex-selective TOP, and associated ethical issues. Sex-selective TOP, usually motivated by son preference, has had serious demographic consequences in countries such as India and China. Currently, ultrasound is the primary method by which parents determine the sex of the fetus. The diffusion of ultrasound technology has had a direct impact on the rates of sex-selective TOP. Although NIPT is currently more costly, it is feasible that increased uptake of this technology could have a similar effect. Partly because NIPT is a relatively recent development in prenatal screening, there is little data on the impact of NIPT on sex selection practices. Evidence that NIPT is playing a role in sex-selective TOP remains largely anecdotal. Further research is required to assess and quantify TOP resulting from NIPT sex determination. The use of these technologies for sex selection raises a number of ethical issues, in addition to practical demographic consequences.

Implementation challenges for an ethical introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' views from Lebanon and Quebec

Background

The clinical introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies is currently transforming the landscape of prenatal screening in many countries. Since it is noninvasive, safe and allows the early detection of abnormalities, NIPT expanded rapidly and the test is currently commercially available in most of the world. As NIPT is being introduced globally, its clinical implementation should consider various challenges, including the role of the surrounding social and cultural contexts. We conducted a qualitative study with healthcare professionals in Lebanon and Quebec as case studies, to highlight the relevance of cultural contexts and to explore the concerns that should be taken into account for an ethical implementation of NIPT.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare professionals (HCPs), 10 from each country, practicing in the field of prenatal screening and follow up diagnostic testing, including obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses, medical geneticists and, genetic counselors. We aimed to 1) explore HCPs’ perceptions and views regarding issues raised by NIPT and 2) to shed light on ways in which the introduction of the same technology (NIPT) in two different contexts (Lebanon and Quebec) raises common and different challenges that are influenced by the cultural norms and legal policies in place.

Results

We identified challenges to the ethical implementation of NIPT. Some are common to both contexts, including financial/economic, social, and organizational/ educational challenges. Others are specific to each context. For example, challenges for Lebanon include abortion policy and financial profit, and in Quebec challenges include lobbying by Disability rights associations and geographical access to NIPT.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the need to consider specific issues related to various cultural contexts when developing frameworks that can guide an ethically sound implementation of NIPT. Further, they show that healthcare professional education and training remain paramount in order to provide NIPT counseling in a way that supports pregnant women and couples’ choice.