The ethical landscape(s) of non-invasive prenatal testing in England, France and Germany: findings from a comparative literature review

Women's wellbeing as an empty declaration? A qualitative exploration of challenges in accessing termination of pregnancy due to fetal anomaly in Germany

BACKGROUND

The provision of prenatal testing through publicly funded healthcare systems, including non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is frequently justified on the basis of supporting reproductive autonomy and informed choice. This includes decision-making around termination of pregnancy (TOP), including where it is due to a diagnosis of fetal anomaly (TOPFA). In Germany, TOP is regulated under the criminal code. However, it is exempt from punishment, if provided upon request from the woman up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks gestation) and following mandatory counselling. After this gestational stage, TOP may be provided where it is necessary to ensure the physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant woman. However, there is a significant lack of clarity about how to interpret and apply this criterion. Fetal anomaly is often detected or confirmed after the time limit for TOP upon request has passed, which introduces uncertainty whether a fetal indication justifies legal access to TOP.

METHODS

This study explores attitudes towards TOP, experiences with decision-making and access, and the implications of the German legal and regulatory frameworks. It draws on a qualitative semi-structured interview study, conducted between 2021 and 2022. Participants were 20 German professionals who have experience or expertise regarding the provision of NIPT, as well as 7 women with experiences of pregnancy, reproductive decision-making and the offer of NIPT. Interviews were conducted in German, and then transcribed, translated, and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants explored the importance of being able to access TOPFA; how the social positioning of TOP as a taboo procedure creates practical and psychosocial barriers to TOPFA access; the tension of who ultimately gets to make the decision about whether TOP can be provided; and how gestational time limits create emotional stress, frustrating informed decision-making and reproductive autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight that where prenatal testing is provided in the absence of guaranteed access to TOP, women's wellbeing becomes an empty declaration in German healthcare policy.

Mainstreaming genetics into Italian prenatal care: exploring the future implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Italian National Healthcare System using stakeholder interviews

Introduction

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionised the way prenatal testing is performed globally. Italy is one of the European countries considering incorporating NIPT nationwide into the publicly funded healthcare system. Given the extensive autonomy granted to the private sector, that not all technological applications result in equal benefits, and that only a few Italian regions currently offer NIPT through the public healthcare system free of charge, it is crucial to consider how to implement such a technology in the Italian public healthcare sector.

Methods

A qualitative study consisting of 12 semistructured interviews was performed. The study population included gynaecologists, geneticists, bioethicists, health economists and public health professionals. Non-probability sampling techniques were used to recruit the study's participants. Content analysis was employed to analyse the data.

Results

From the interviews, it emerged that a contingent implementation of NIPT for major chromosomal aneuploidies screening seems the most cost-effective and logical in the Italian context. No consensus was reached on fetal sex and sex chromosome aneuploidies screening. Most interviewees disagreed with making whole-genome/whole-exome sequencing available through the public sector. The high appreciation of NIPT, its potential to advance fundamental objectives of healthcare systems and its compatibility with the Italian prenatal testing culture are among the factors that may facilitate the transition of NIPT from the private to the public sector. Mainstreaming NIPT in the public healthcare system is challenged by its high costs, current offer, lack of prioritisation and regional differences.

Conclusions

While transitions take time and are challenging to achieve, this study shows that the current prenatal testing structure and practice would only need modest adjustments to accommodate NIPT, offering hope for the future. Future studies could expand this research by involving a broad range of stakeholders and investigating the effects of various NIPT implementation strategies presently employed across Italian regions.

Approach and Management of Pregnancies with Risk Identified by Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing

This study represents our second investigation into NIPT, involving a more extensive patient cohort with a specific emphasis on the high-risk group. The high-risk group was subsequently divided into two further groups to compare confirmed cases versus unconfirmed via direct methods. The methodology encompassed the analysis of 1400 consecutive cases from a single genetic center in western Romania, where NIPT was used to assess the risk of specific fetal chromosomal abnormalities. All high-risk cases underwent validation through direct analysis of fetal cells obtained via invasive methods, including chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. The confirmation process utilized QF-PCR, karyotyping, and SNP-Array methods customized to each case. Results: A high risk of aneuploidy at NIPT was identified in 36 out of 1400 (2.57%) cases and confirmed in 28 cases. The study also detected an increased risk for copy number variations (CNVs) in 1% of cases, confirmed in two instances involving one large microdeletion and one large microduplication. Trisomy 21 was the exclusive anomaly where NIPT confirmed all cases with identified risk. High-risk NIPT results which were not validated by invasive methods, were classified as false positives; parents in these cases determined to continue the pregnancy. In conclusion, NIPT can serve as a screening method for all pregnancies; however, in high-risk cases, an invasive confirmation test is strongly recommended.

Supporting patient decision-making in non-invasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of professional values and practices in England and France

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which can screen for aneuploidies such as trisomy 21, is being implemented in several public healthcare systems across Europe. Comprehensive communication and information have been highlighted in the literature as important elements in supporting women's reproductive decision-making and addressing relevant ethical concerns such as routinisation. Countries such as England and France are adopting broadly similar implementation models, offering NIPT for pregnancies with high aneuploidy probability. However, we do not have a deeper understanding of how professionals' counselling values and practices may differ between these contexts.

METHODS

In this paper, we explore how professionals in England and France support patient decision-making in the provision of NIPT and critically compare professional practices and values. We draw on data from semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Both English and French professionals emphasised values relating to patient choice and consent. However, understandings and application of these values into the practice of NIPT provision differed. English interviewees placed a stronger emphasis on interpreting and describing the process of counselling patients and clinical care through a "principle" lens. Their focus was on non-directiveness, standardisation, and the healthcare professional as "decision-facilitator" for patients. French interviewees described their approach through a "procedural" lens. Their focus was on formal consent, information, and the healthcare professional as "information-giver". Both English and French professionals indicated that insufficient resources were a key barrier in effectively translating their values into practice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings illustrate that supporting patient choice in the provision of NIPT may be held as an important value in common on a surface level, but can be understood and translated into practice in different ways. Our findings can guide further research and beneficially inform practice and policy around NIPT provision.

Informal Prenatal Genetic Screening Education: What can you learn from Google and YouTube?

Introduction

The goal of this paper is to explore what online education and decision support tools are freely available to patients about prenatal screening.

Materials and Methods

We 1) conducted an environmental scan using Google Trends to identify and evaluate prenatal screening search terms, 2) created a list of websites and YouTube videos that would be easily accessed by a searcher and 3) characterized the information within those websites and videos, including an examination of their qualities as a decision support tool and a readability analysis.

Results

Fifty websites, containing 62 unique educational resources, and 39 YouTube videos were analyzed. The websites were primarily educational, though the education was provided by a range of sources including non-profit and for-profit organizations, universities, and governments (i.e., public health departments). Readability scores (PEMAT-P) for the sites ranged from 50% to 92%, with a median score of 74%. Two of the websites we evaluated met all of the limited decision support standards we applied; four of the websites included patient stories or experiences and eight included some element of values clarification. Videos were more likely to include values clarification.

Discussion

The information available to patients online is variable. While most is balanced and informative, much is difficult to read and missing key decision-making factors. Healthcare providers should work with patients to ensure they have basic comprehension of the prenatal genetic screening materials, possible result outcomes, and expected steps following a positive screening result.

Limited ability of increased sequencing depth in detecting cases missed by noninvasive prenatal testing: a comparative analysis of 3 clinical cases

Increased sequencing depth can improve the detection rate of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidies and copy number variations (CNVs). However, due to the technical limitations of NIPT, false-positives and false-negatives are inevitable. False-positives for aneuploidy and CNVs have been widely reported, but few missed cases have been reported. In this study, we report 3 patients missed by NIPT, which were still missed after increasing the sequencing depth. To verify the detection efficiency of the platform, the results of NIPT in 32,796 patients treated in Yulin Women and Children Health Care Hospital from 2020 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Data on false-negative cases found by postnatal follow-up or amniocentesis were collected, and the sequencing data, pregnancy examination data, and postnatal follow-up results of these missed patients were summarized. Five patients missed by NIPT were found, and they were missed again by retesting or increasing the sequencing depth. Except for hypospadias found in 1 patient, ultrasonography of the other 4 patients showed no obvious abnormalities during the whole pregnancy. Our results suggest that pregnant women should be fully informed of the benefits and limitations of NIPT before undergoing the examination to avoid unnecessary medical disputes.

[Towards a generalization of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of single-gene disorders? Assesment and outlook]

OBJECTIVES

The screening of fetal aneuploidies and non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of monogenic diseases (NIPD-MD) both rely on the study of free fetal DNA in maternal circulation, but their respective rise was unequal. Development of NIPD-MD has taken longer as it represents a less attractive commercial dynamic for industry, but also because it usually involves the development of tailored tests specific to each pathogenic variant.

METHODS

We have carried out a review of the literature on the various indications and technologies involved in the use of NIPD-MM. We present its current implementation and its development in France.

RESULTS

To date, NIPD-MD has been routinely offered in France for several years by the laboratories of the French NIPD-MD network but remains mostly limited to the exclusion of paternal or de novo variants, the exclusion DPNI-MD. Indeed, it is still difficult to study the transmission of maternal variants from circulating free DNA analysis, due to its biological complexity: coexistence and predominance of similar DNA sequences of maternal origin. Different strategies, either direct or indirect, are being evaluated to establish fetal status regardless of the parental origin of the disease or its transmission mode. The emergence of commercial screening solutions for monogenic diseases complements the arsenal of prenatal exploration tools for these diseases.

CONCLUSION

The multitude of existing technologies and protocols may complicate the information provided during antenatal consultations, but mastery of know-how and knowledge of ethical issues of NIPD-MD will ensure optimal service and better management of pregnancies at risk of transmitting monogenic disease.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions

Non-invasive prenatal testing was first discovered in 1988; it was primarily thought to be able to detect common aneuploidies, such as Patau syndrome (T13), Edward Syndrome (T18), and Down syndrome (T21). It comprises a simple technique involving the analysis of cell-free foetal DNA (cffDNA) obtained through maternal serum, using advances in next-generation sequencing. NIPT has shown promise as a simple and low-risk screening test, leading various governments and private organizations worldwide to dedicate significant resources towards its integration into national healthcare initiatives as well as the formation of consortia and research studies aimed at standardizing its implementation. This article aims to review the reliability of NIPT while discussing the current challenges prevalent among different communities worldwide.

Association of maternal risk factors with fetal aneuploidy and the accuracy of prenatal aneuploidy screening: a correlation analysis based on 12,186 karyotype reports

BACKGROUND

NIPT is becoming increasingly important as its use becomes more widespread in China. More details are urgently needed on the correlation between maternal risk factors and fetal aneuploidy, and how these factors affect the accuracy of prenatal aneuploidy screening.

METHODS

Information on the pregnant women was collected, including maternal age, gestational age, specific medical history and results of prenatal aneuploidy screening. Additionally, the OR, validity and predictive value were also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 12,186 analysable karyotype reports were collected with 372 (3.05%) fetal aneuploidies, including 161 (1.32%) T21, 81 (0.66%) T18, 41 (0.34%) T13 and 89 (0.73%) SCAs. The OR was highest for maternal age less than 20 years (6.65), followed by over 40 years (3.59) and 35-39 years (2.48). T13 (16.95) and T18 (9.40) were more frequent in the over-40 group (P < 0.01); T13 (3.62/5.76) and SCAs (2.49/3.95) in the 35-39 group (P < 0.01). Cases with a history of fetal malformation had the highest OR (35.94), followed by RSA (13.08): the former was more likely to have T13 (50.65) (P < 0.01) and the latter more likely to have T18 (20.50) (P < 0.01). The sensitivity of primary screening was 73.24% and the NPV was 98.23%. The TPR for NIPT was 100.00% and the respective PPVs for T21, T18, T13 and SCAs were 89.92, 69.77, 53.49 and 43.24%, respectively. The accuracy of NIPT increased with increasing gestational age (0.81). In contrast, the accuracy of NIPT decreased with maternal age (1.12) and IVF-ET history (4.15).

CONCLUSIONS

①Pregnant patients with maternal age below 20 years had higher risk of aneuploidy, especially in T13; ②A history of fetal malformations is more risky than RSA, with the former more likely to have T13 and the latter more likely to have T18; ③Primary screening essentially achieves the goal of identifying a normal karyotype, and NIPT can accurately screen for fetal aneuploidy; ④A number of maternal risk factors may influence the accuracy of NIPT diagnosis, including older age, premature testing, or a history of IVF-ET. In conclusion, this study provides a reliable theoretical basis for optimizing prenatal aneuploidy screening strategies and improving population quality.

Factors related to indecisive attitudes toward non-invasive prenatal testing among women of reproductive age in Japan

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the factors related to indecisive attitudes toward noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) among nonpregnant women of reproductive age.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey involving nonpregnant Japanese women aged 20-49 years. The questionnaires consisted of a hypothetical question about whether they would decide to undergo NIPT if they were to become pregnant, and responses with "unsure" were defined as indecisive attitudes.

RESULTS

Of 1250 participants, 412 (33%) held indecisive attitudes on whether to undergo NIPT. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated indecisive attitudes were related to a low level of knowledge about prenatal testing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.89) and preferences for family-driven decisions (AOR 1.44) instead of provider-driven.

CONCLUSION

Even though the NIPT is widespread, many nonpregnant women of reproductive age are unable to decide whether to undergo the NIPT or not. Hence, indecisive women toward NIPT require adequate information and communication about future NIPT among their families prior to conception. Therefore, preconception support of providing adequate information about testing and facilitating communication regarding future NIPT among women and their family members may help indecisive women make autonomous decisions on NIPT.

Non-invasive prenatal testing in Germany: a unique ethical and policy landscape

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available commercially in Europe since approximately 2012. Currently, many countries are in the process of integrating NIPT into their publicly funded healthcare systems to screen for chromosomal aneuploidies such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), with a variety of implementation models. In 2019, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), which plays a significant role in overseeing healthcare decisions in Germany, recommended that NIPT be reimbursed through public insurance. Following this recommendation, NIPT will be offered on a case-by-case basis, when a pregnant woman, after being counselled, makes an informed decision that the test is necessary in her personal situation. This model differs significantly from many other European countries, where NIPT is being implemented either as a first-tier screening offer available for all pregnancies, or a contingent screen for those with a high probability of foetal aneuploidy (with varying probability cut-offs). In this paper we examine how this unique approach to implementing NIPT in Germany is produced by an ethical and policy landscape resulting from a distinctive cultural and historical context with a significant influence on healthcare decision-making. Due in part to the specific legal and regulatory environment, as well as strong objections from various stakeholders, Germany did not implement NIPT as a first-tier screen. However, as Germany does not currently publicly fund as standard other forms of prenatal aneuploidy screening (such as combined first trimester screening), neither can it be implemented as a screen contingent on specific probability cut-offs. We discuss how German policy reflects the echoes of the past shaping approaches to new biotechnologies, and the implications of this unique model for implementing NIPT in a public healthcare system.

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.

False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test.

Methods

The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective.

Results

A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies?

Conclusions

Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results.

Views on disability and prenatal testing among families with Down syndrome and disability activists: A comparative analysis of interviews from Germany and Israel

The prenatal genetic testing arena has witnessed great changes over the past decades and has been the focus of extensive discussion of its ethical, legal, and social implications. Germany and Israel were previously known for strongly contrasting regulations and attitudes of both professionals and laypeople towards genetic testing. Based on qualitative analysis of 37 semi-structured interviews, this study compares German and Israeli family members of individuals with Down syndrome and disability activists, thereby examining the interplay between lived experience and cultural scripts and their impact on the formation of personal views toward disability and prenatal testing. We have found that the differences between Germany and Israel remain, despite the emergence of new technologies, and that family members and disability activists reflect the norms of their socio-cultural environments, thereby emphasising the role society plays in shaping the views of those with direct experience of disability.

The History and Future of Basic and Translational Cell-Free DNA Research at a Glance

We discuss the early history of the structure of DNA and its involvement in gene structure as well as its mobility in and between cells and between tissues in the form of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). This is followed by a view of the present status of the studies on cfDNA and clinical applications of circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA). The future developments and roles of ctDNA are also considered.