Using population-based data to predict the impact of introducing noninvasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome

Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVES

To investigate by means of a population-based analysis of a cohort of women who underwent combined first-trimester screening (CFTS), changes in uptake of invasive prenatal diagnosis according to risk of trisomy 21 (T21) on CFTS, and prevalence and methods for ascertainment of atypical chromosome abnormalities.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using state-wide prenatal datasets from Victoria, Australia. A three-step approach was taken to analyze the data: (1) linkage of records between serum screening and diagnostic results; (2) comparison of rates of diagnostic testing according to CFTS T21 risk result category in a 2014-2015 cohort with those of a historical 2002-2004 cohort; (3) detailed analysis of atypical abnormalities in the 2014-2015 group according to CFTS T21 risk result, individual serum analyte level and other indications for invasive diagnostic testing.

RESULTS

In 2014-2015, there were 100 418 CFTS results issued for 146 776 births (68.4%). The overall prevalence of atypical chromosome abnormalities in the entire CFTS cohort was 0.10% and was highest in those with CFTS T21 risk > 1 in 10 (4.6%), or serum analyte levels < 0.2 multiples of the median (MoM) (6.9% for pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and 5.2% for beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG)). Almost half (49.2%) of women with PAPP-A < 0.2 MoM had a risk for T21 on CFTS of less than 1 in 100. The majority (55%) of atypical abnormalities occurred in women with CFTS T21 risk below 1 in 300, and were most commonly detected on ultrasound examination (47.1%).

CONCLUSION

Concerns regarding missed diagnoses of atypical chromosome abnormalities when non-invasive prenatal testing is offered after a result of high risk on CFTS can be mitigated if invasive diagnostic testing is offered to those women with CFTS T21 risk of > 1 in 100, serum PAPP-A or β-hCG < 0.2 MoM, or ultrasound-detected abnormality. This has implications for contingent models of screening. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive and false negative screening tests (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester ultrasound markers alone, and in combination with first trimester serum tests for the detection of Down's syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out extensive literature searches including MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), and The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (the Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7). We checked reference lists and published review articles for additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating tests of first trimester ultrasound screening, alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests (up to 14 weeks' gestation) for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 126 studies (152 publications) involving 1,604,040 fetuses (including 8454 Down's syndrome cases). Studies were generally good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Sixty test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of 11 different ultrasound markers (nuchal translucency (NT), nasal bone, ductus venosus Doppler, maxillary bone length, fetal heart rate, aberrant right subclavian artery, frontomaxillary facial angle, presence of mitral gap, tricuspid regurgitation, tricuspid blood flow and iliac angle 90 degrees); 12 serum tests (inhibin A, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), free beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (ßhCG), total hCG, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), disintegrin and metalloprotease 12 (ADAM 12), placental growth factor (PlGF), placental growth hormone (PGH), invasive trophoblast antigen (ITA) (synonymous with hyperglycosylated hCG), growth hormone binding protein (GHBP) and placental protein 13 (PP13)); and maternal age. The most frequently evaluated serum markers in combination with ultrasound markers were PAPP-A and free ßhCG.Comparisons of the 10 most frequently evaluated test strategies showed that a combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy significantly outperformed ultrasound markers alone (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). In both direct and indirect comparisons, the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy showed superior diagnostic accuracy to an NT and maternal age test strategy (P < 0.0001). Based on the indirect comparison of all available studies for the two tests, the sensitivity (95% confidence interval) estimated at a 5% FPR for the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy (69 studies; 1,173,853 fetuses including 6010 with Down's syndrome) was 87% (86 to 89) and for the NT and maternal age test strategy (50 studies; 530,874 fetuses including 2701 Down's syndrome pregnancies) was 71% (66 to 75). Combinations of NT with other ultrasound markers, PAPP-A and free ßhCG were evaluated in one or two studies and showed sensitivities of more than 90% and specificities of more than 95%.High-risk populations (defined before screening was done, mainly due to advanced maternal age of 35 years or more, or previous pregnancies affected with Down's syndrome) showed lower detection rates compared to routine screening populations at a 5% FPR. Women who miscarried in the over 35 group were more likely to have been offered an invasive test to verify a negative screening results, whereas those under 35 were usually not offered invasive testing for a negative screening result. Pregnancy loss in women under 35 therefore leads to under-ascertainment of screening results, potentially missing a proportion of affected pregnancies and affecting test sensitivity. Conversely, for the NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy, detection rates and false positive rates increased with maternal age in the five studies that provided data separately for the subset of women aged 35 years or more.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Test strategies that combine ultrasound markers with serum markers, especially PAPP-A and free ßhCG, and maternal age were significantly better than those involving only ultrasound markers (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone. They detect about nine out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. Although the absence of nasal bone appeared to have a high diagnostic accuracy, only five out of 10 affected Down's pregnancies were detected at a 1% FPR.

First and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability. Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.  Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal) and false negative screening tests (i.e. a fetus with Down's syndrome will be missed). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester serum markers with and without first trimester ultrasound markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, as combinations of markers.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (the Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), the Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), the National Research Register (Archived 2007), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We did forward citation searching in ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We also searched reference lists of retrieved articles SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating tests of combining first and second trimester maternal serum markers in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, with or without first trimester ultrasound markers, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (reported in 25 publications) involving 228,615 pregnancies (including 1067 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high risk pregnancies. Ten studies made direct comparisons between tests. Thirty-two different test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of eight different tests and maternal age; first trimester nuchal translucency (NT) and the serum markers AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG, Inhibin A, PAPP-A and ADAM 12. We looked at tests combining first and second trimester markers with or without ultrasound as complete tests, and we also examined stepwise and contingent strategies.Meta-analysis of the six most frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a combination of first trimester NT and PAPP-A, and second trimester total hCG, uE3, AFP and Inhibin A significantly outperformed other test combinations that involved only one serum marker or NT in the first trimester, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. However, the evidence was limited in terms of the number of studies evaluating this strategy, and we therefore cannot recommend one single screening strategy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving first trimester ultrasound with first and second trimester serum markers in combination with maternal age are significantly better than those without ultrasound, or those evaluating first trimester ultrasound in combination with second trimester serum markers, without first trimester serum markers. We cannot make recommendations about a specific strategy on the basis of the small number of studies available.

Noninvasive prenatal testing in routine clinical practice--an audit of NIPT and combined first-trimester screening in an unselected Australian population

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in low-risk populations, and the ideal aneuploidy screening model for a pregnant population has yet to be established.

AIMS

To assess the implementation of NIPT into clinical practice utilising both first- and second-line screening models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three private practices specialising in obstetric ultrasound and prenatal diagnosis in Australia offered NIPT as a first-line test, ideally followed by combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), or as a second-line test following cFTS, particularly in those with a calculated risk between 1:50 and 1:1000.

RESULTS

NIPT screening was performed in 5267 women and as a first-line screening method in 3359 (63.8%). Trisomies 21 and 13 detection was 100% and 88% for trisomy 18. Of cases with known karyotypes, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test was highest for trisomy 21 (97.7%) and lowest for monosomy X (25%). Ultrasound detection of fetal structural abnormality resulted in the detection of five additional chromosome abnormalities, two of which had high-risk cFTS results. For all chromosomal abnormalities, NIPT alone detected 93.4%, a contingent model detected 81.8% (P = 0.097), and cFTS alone detected 65.9% (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

NIPT achieved 100% T21 detection and had a higher DR of all aneuploidy when used as a first-line test. Given the false-positive rate for all aneuploidies, NIPT is an advanced screening test, rather than a diagnostic test. The benefit of additional cFTS was the detection of fetal structural abnormalities and some unusual chromosomal abnormalities.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21 based on analysis of cell-free fetal DNA circulating in the maternal plasma

OBJECTIVE

By-the-book implementation of non-invasive prenatal test and clinical validation for trisomy 21.

STUDY DESIGN

Publicly funded prospective study of 225 cases. Women at risk for trisomy 21 > 1/250 based on combined ultrasound and serum markers during first or second trimester were eligible following an informed consent. The technique was established from the available literature and performed on 10 mL of venous blood collected prior to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Investigators were blinded to the fetal karyotype. Results were expressed in Z-scores of the percentage of each chromosome.

RESULTS

Among 976 eligible cases, 225 were processed: 8 were used for pretesting phase and 23 to build a reference set. One hundred thirty six euploid cases and 47 with trisomy 21 were then run randomly. Eleven cases yielded no result (4.8%). Z-scores were above 3 (7.58+/-2.41) for chromosome 21 in all 47 trisomies and in none of the euploid cases (0.11+/-1.0). Z-scores were within normal range for the other chromosomes in both groups. Using a cut-off of 3, sensitivity and specificity were of 100% 95% CI [94.1, 100] and 100% 95% CI [98, 100], respectively.

CONCLUSION

Non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 is a robust strategy that can be translated from seminal publications. Publicly funded studies should refine its indications and cost-effectiveness in prenatal screening and diagnosis. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

First trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Noninvasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. However, no test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester serum markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, both as individual markers and as combinations of markers. Accuracy is described by the proportion of fetuses with Down's syndrome detected by screening before birth (sensitivity or detection rate) and the proportion of women with a low risk (normal) screening test result who subsequently had a baby unaffected by Down's syndrome (specificity).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (Archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did forward citation searching ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We also searched reference lists and published review articles.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in which all women from a given population had one or more index test(s) compared to a reference standard (either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection). Both consecutive series and diagnostic case-control study designs were included. Randomised trials where individuals were randomised to different screening strategies and all verified using a reference standard were also eligible for inclusion. Studies in which test strategies were compared head-to-head either in the same women, or between randomised groups were identified for inclusion in separate comparisons of test strategies. We excluded studies if they included less than five Down's syndrome cases, or more than 20% of participants were not followed up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data as test positive or test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods or random-effects logistic regression methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy as appropriate. Analyses of studies allowing direct and indirect comparisons between tests were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 studies (reported in 68 publications) involving 204,759 pregnancies (including 2113 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. We evaluated 78 test combinations formed from combinations of 18 different tests, with or without maternal age; ADAM12 (a disintegrin and metalloprotease), AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), inhibin, PAPP-A (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), free βhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), PlGF (placental growth factor), SP1 (Schwangerschafts protein 1), total hCG, progesterone, uE3 (unconjugated oestriol), GHBP (growth hormone binding protein), PGH (placental growth hormone), hyperglycosylated hCG, ProMBP (proform of eosinophil major basic protein), hPL (human placental lactogen), (free αhCG, and free ßhCG to AFP ratio. Direct comparisons between two or more tests were made in 27 studies.Meta-analysis of the nine best performing or frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a double marker combination of PAPP-A and free ßhCG significantly outperformed the individual markers (with or without maternal age) detecting about seven out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). Limited evidence suggested that marker combinations involving PAPP-A may be more sensitive than those without PAPP-A.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving two markers in combination with maternal age, specifically PAPP-A, free βhCG and maternal age are significantly better than those involving single markers with and without age. They detect seven out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. The addition of further markers (triple tests) has not been shown to be statistically superior; the studies included are small with limited power to detect a difference.The screening blood tests themselves have no adverse effects for the woman, over and above the risks of a routine blood test. However some women who have a 'high risk' screening test result, and are given amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) have a risk of miscarrying a baby unaffected by Down's. Parents will need to weigh up this risk when deciding whether or not to have an amniocentesis or CVS following a 'high risk' screening test result.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Western Australia; considerations in clinical practice

With the rapid uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), certain technical and ethical limitations are becoming more widely recognised; however, there are still some salient issues that seem to be left by the wayside. As the consumer driven push for NIPT increases, healthcare providers need to ensure that they are providing testing appropriately and that patients understand the potential limitations and results as well as the benefits.

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program

BACKGROUND

Currently, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is only recommended in high-risk women following conventional Down syndrome (DS) screening, and it has not yet been included in the Australian DS screening program.

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies of NIPT for DS screening in comparison with current practice.

METHODS

A decision-analytic approach modelled a theoretical cohort of 300,000 singleton pregnancies. The strategies compared were the following: current practice, NIPT as a second-tier investigation, NIPT only in women >35 years, NIPT only in women >40 years and NIPT for all women. The direct costs (low and high estimates) were derived using both health system costs and patient out-of-pocket expenses. The number of DS cases detected and procedure-related losses (PRL) were compared between strategies. The incremental cost per case detected was the primary measure of cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Universal NIPT costs an additional $134,636,832 compared with current practice, but detects 123 more DS cases (at an incremental cost of $1,094,608 per case) and avoids 90 PRL. NIPT for women >40 years was the most cost-effective strategy, costing an incremental $81,199 per additional DS case detected and avoiding 95 PRL.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost of NIPT needs to decrease significantly if it is to replace current practice on a purely cost-effectiveness basis. However, it may be beneficial to use NIPT as first-line screening in selected high-risk patients. Further evaluation is needed to consider the longer-term costs and benefits of screening.

Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice.

METHODS

A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-trimester screening with a testing pathway incorporating NIPT. We applied the model to 32 478 singleton pregnancies screened between January 2005 and December 2006, adding Medicare rebate data as a measure of public health system costs. The analyses reflect the actual uptake of screening and diagnostic testing and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort.

RESULTS

The introduction of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and procedure-related fetal losses in high-risk women by 88%. If NIPT was adopted by all women identified as high risk by first-trimester combined screening, up to 7 additional Down syndrome fetuses could be confirmed. The cost per trisomy 21 case confirmed, including NIPT was 9.7% higher ($56,360) than the current prenatal testing strategy ($51,372) at a total cost of $3.91 million compared with $3.57 million over 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Based on the uptake of screening and diagnostic testing in a retrospective cohort of first-trimester screening in Western Australia, the implementation of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic tests and the number of procedure-related fetal losses and increase the cost by 9.7% over two years. Policy planning and guidelines are urgently required to manage the funding and demand for NIPT services in Australia.

A single center's experience with noninvasive prenatal testing

PURPOSE

Massively parallel sequencing to detect fetal aneuploidy has high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk populations. The purpose of our study was to review our institution's experience with the use of noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy screening.

METHODS

This was a descriptive study of patients who had undergone noninvasive prenatal testing between January and September 2012 at the UNC Prenatal Diagnosis unit.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight women had undergone noninvasive prenatal testing during the study period. The majority of patients were white (62.9%) and of advanced maternal age (71.2%). The fetal fraction was below the threshold in three obese patients (1.4%). An abnormal noninvasive prenatal test (aneuploidy detected or "unclassified" result) was reported in 6.3% (13/208) of the patients. Noninvasive prenatal testing had a combined sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 99.5% for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13. There were "unclassified" results in 11.1% (5/45) of the patients. Over the study period, the number of patients requesting noninvasive prenatal testing increased monthly. The rate of amniocenteses significantly declined (8.1% before vs. 5.3% after noninvasive prenatal testing, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

An increase in uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing and a significant decline in amniocentesis procedures were observed. The rates of "unclassified," false-positive, and false-negative results were higher than anticipated based on published preclinical trials.

Non-invasive prenatal screening of fetal sex chromosomal abnormalities: perspective of pregnant women

OBJECTIVE

To study whether pregnant women would like to be informed if sex chromosomal abnormalities (SCA) were suspected with the non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal Down syndrome (the NIFTY) test.

METHODS

Two hundred and one patients carried a singleton pregnancy requesting the NIFTY test were invited to give their preferences if there was suspicion of SCA by the NIFTY test.

RESULTS

Over 93.5% were ethnic Chinese, with a mean age of 36. Prior Down screening was positive in 66 (32.8%). Over 50% of subjects considered SCA to be better in terms of disability compared to Down syndrome, and only 5.2% considered SCA to be worse. Yet, the majority (198, 98.5%) indicated that they wanted to be informed if there was suspicion of SCA. Of whom 34.8% would have an amniocentesis for confirmation, while 57.1% were not certain, indicating the possibility of accepting these conditions.

CONCLUSION

Besides screening Down syndrome by NIFTY, most pregnant women would also like to be informed if there was suspicion of SCA. Those screened positive should be counseled by those with experience in genetics to avoid unnecessary pregnancy termination.

From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine: progress and challenges

Thus far, the focus of personalized medicine has been the prevention and treatment of conditions that affect adults. Although advances in genetic technology have been applied more frequently to prenatal diagnosis than to fetal treatment, genetic and genomic information is beginning to influence pregnancy management. Recent developments in sequencing the fetal genome combined with progress in understanding fetal physiology using gene expression arrays indicate that we could have the technical capabilities to apply an individualized medicine approach to the fetus. Here I review recent advances in prenatal genetic diagnostics, the challenges associated with these new technologies and how the information derived from them can be used to advance fetal care. Historically, the goal of prenatal diagnosis has been to provide an informed choice to prospective parents. We are now at a point where that goal can and should be expanded to incorporate genetic, genomic and transcriptomic data to develop new approaches to fetal treatment.