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

Preferences of pregnant women and obstetric healthcare professionals on using noninvasive prenatal testing to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to screen for fetal aneuploidies by analysing cell-free DNA in maternal plasma is available to pregnant women worldwide. In the future, the scope of NIPT could potentially be expanded to the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the preferences of pregnant women and obstetric healthcare professionals on this new test purpose of NIPT.

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment was designed to assess participants' preferences on the use of NIPT to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes regarding three attributes on test characteristics: test accuracy rate, unnecessary intervention rate and false reassurance rate. A questionnaire assessed general attitudes towards using noninvasive prenatal testing to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes.

SETTING

Dutch prenatal healthcare system.

PARTICIPANTS

Pregnant women with singleton pregnancies and obstetric healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

In total, 1580 pregnant women and 308 obstetric healthcare professionals participated in the discrete choice experiment. Higher test accuracy, fewer unnecessary interventions and less false reassurance all had a statistically significant (p<0.05) impact on the preference for a test. For pregnant women, the most important test characteristic when choosing a preferred test was the test accuracy rate, while for obstetric healthcare professionals, the most important test characteristic was the unnecessary intervention rate. The false reassurance rate was the least important test characteristic for both groups. Overall, 74% (n=1181) of pregnant women (strongly) agreed that NIPT to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes should be offered to pregnant women compared with 49% (n=151) of obstetric healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pregnant women have a positive attitude towards using NIPT to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with slightly less than half of the obstetric healthcare professionals. Pregnant women prioritise a prognostic test with higher test accuracy, while obstetric healthcare professionals prioritise a test that results in fewer unnecessary interventions.

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

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

Factors affecting couples' decision making about expanded prenatal cell-free DNA screening

Purpose

To assess intended parents' preferences about expanded prenatal cell-free DNA screening.

Methods

A survey was administered to couples who were pregnant or trying to conceive. Partners within couples were independently asked about willingness to seek prenatal cell-free DNA screening for diseases and traits that varied by severity, treatability, age of onset, and reliability. Additional questions explored couples' decision-making processes and how various factors would affect those decisions.

Results

Respondents (n = 494) were most likely to seek a prenatal genetic test when the test is completely predictive (P value of predictability effect = .0116), for earlier onset (P value of onset effect = .0310), treatable diseases (P value of treatability effect = .0032), and of highest severity (P value of severity effect < .0001). Living in states where termination was not available was not associated with decreased interest in prenatal screening, with 45% reporting that it would make them more likely to seek testing. There was moderate concordance between couples about their testing decisions and the majority of pregnant persons (68.8%) and partners (66.7%) desired firm screening recommendations from their doctors.

Conclusion

These data suggest that couples are highly information seeking when presented with all testing options neutrally, but most desire to be presented with firm testing recommendations from their clinician.

Clinical-grade whole genome sequencing-based haplarithmisis enables all forms of preimplantation genetic testing

High-throughput sequencing technologies have increasingly led to discovery of disease-causing genetic variants, primarily in postnatal multi-cell DNA samples. However, applying these technologies to preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in nuclear or mitochondrial DNA from single or few-cells biopsied from in vitro fertilised (IVF) embryos is challenging. PGT aims to select IVF embryos without genetic abnormalities. Although genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS)-based haplotyping methods enabled PGT for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), structural rearrangements (PGT-SR), and aneuploidies (PGT-A), they are labour intensive, only partially cover the genome and are troublesome for difficult loci and consanguineous couples. Here, we devise a simple, scalable and universal whole genome sequencing haplarithmisis-based approach enabling all forms of PGT in a single assay. In a comparison to state-of-the-art GBS-based PGT for nuclear DNA, shallow sequencing-based PGT, and PCR-based PGT for mitochondrial DNA, our approach alleviates technical limitations by decreasing whole genome amplification artifacts by 68.4%, increasing breadth of coverage by at least 4-fold, and reducing wet-lab turn-around-time by ~2.5-fold. Importantly, this method enables trio-based PGT-A for aneuploidy origin, an approach we coin PGT-AO, detects translocation breakpoints, and nuclear and mitochondrial single nucleotide variants and indels in base-resolution.

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

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

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.

Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues

In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit-harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

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.

Exploring measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screening: A systematic review

There is a lack of standardized measurement tools globally to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of expecting women toward prenatal screening. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify reasons women pursue or decline prenatal screening and compare the strengths and limitations of available measurement tools used to assess pregnant women's perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes toward prenatal screening. This review followed the five-step York methodology by Arksey and O'Malley and incorporated recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results. The five steps consisted of: (1) identification of the research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) data charting; and (5) collation, summarization, and reporting of results. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were selected after the librarian's development of a detailed search strategy. The Rayyan platform was used between June 2023 and August 2023 to epitomize the articles produced from our search. A total of 68 eligible studies were included in the analysis. The top five major reasons for declining prenatal screening uptake included (1) being unsure of the risk of prenatal screening and harm to the baby or miscarriage (n = 15), (2) not considering action such as termination of pregnancy for prenatal screening to be considered as necessary (n = 14), (3) high cost (n = 12), (4) lack of knowledge about testing procedures and being anxious about the test (n = 10), and (5) being worried about probability of false negative or false positive results (n = 6). Only 32 studies utilized scientifically validated instruments. Difficulties in capturing representative, adequately sized samples inclusive of diverse ethnicities and demographics were pervasive. Findings highlight the need for rigorous validation of research measurement methodologies to ensure the accuracy and applicability of resulting data regarding the assessment of prenatal screening perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes across diverse female populations.Registration: N/A.

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.