The influence of experiential knowledge and societal perceptions on decision-making regarding non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

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.

Advancements of non-invasive prenatal testing: the role of obstetricians

Since its debut in 2011, Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) has continually demonstrated its effectiveness in detecting an expanding number of diseases. NIPT offers a less invasive approach to prenatal chromosomal disease screening, providing prospective parents with vital information to better prepare for their potential pregnancy outcomes. NIPT was primarily designed for screening trisomy 13, 18, and 21. However, its scope has since broadened to encompass microdeletions and autosomal dominant monogenic diseases. Conversely, the normalization of NIPT can have unintended consequences. Some patients opt for NIPT without any medical indications, driven by a desire to remain cautious. This over-screening for chromosomal abnormalities can exacerbate pregnancy-related anxiety, as individuals might feel pressured into taking the test unnecessarily. While NIPT can be highly successful when conducted correctly, it is not infallible, and obstetricians play a crucial role in managing patient expectations. This includes providing genetic counseling to individuals with relevant genetic information regarding their personal and family histories. In the context of NIPT, a bioinformatics analysis is performed on a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sample extracted from the mother's placenta to determine the fetal fraction (FF). This FF measurement is vital for quality control and ensuring statistical confidence in the test results. Raising awareness among clinicians about the significance of FF enhances patient care and alleviate concerns about the possibility of failed NIPT. This paper aims to explore the ongoing debates and more specifically the significance and pitfalls of NIPT on a psychosocial and ethical scale, all while highlighting the importance of genetic counseling.

Performance Evaluation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Screening Chromosome Disorders: A Single-Center Observational Study of 15,304 Consecutive Cases in China

Objective

This study was to evaluate the performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting fetal chromosome disorders in pregnant women.

Methods

From October 1st, 2017, to December 31th, 2022, a total of 15,304 plasma cell free DNA-NIPT samples were collected for fetal chromosome disorders screening. The results of NIPT were validated by confirmatory invasive testing or clinical outcome follow-up. Further, NIPT performance between low-risk and high-risk groups, as well as singleton pregnancy and twin pregnancy groups was compared. Besides, analysis of 111 false-positive cases was performed.

Results

Totally, NIPT was performed on 15,086 eligible venous blood samples, of which 179 (1.19%) showed positive NIPT results and 68 were further validated to be true positive samples via confirmatory invasive testing or follow-up of clinical outcomes. For common chromosome aneuploidies, sex chromosome abnormalities (SCA) and other chromosomal aneuploidies, the detection sensitivities of NIPT were all 100%, the specificities were 99.87%, 99.70%, and 99.68% and the positive predictive values (PPVs) were 65.45%, 31.82%, and 10.91%, respectively. No statistically significant variance in detection performance was observed among 2987 high-risk and 12,099 low-risk subjects, as well as singleton and twin pregnancy subjects. The concentration of cell-free fetal DNA of 111 false-positive cases ranged from 5.5% to 33.7%, which was higher than the minimum requirement of NIPT.

Conclusion

With stringent protocol, NIPT shows high sensitivity and specificity for detecting fetal chromosome disorders in a large-scale clinical service, helping improving overall pregnancy management.

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.

Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing in Switzerland: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Prenatal genetic testing, in particular non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), as well as screening for risks associated with pregnancy, and counseling, play pivotal roles in reproductive healthcare, offering valuable information about the health of the fetus to expectant parents. This study aims to delve into the perspectives and experiences of women considering genetic testing and screening during pregnancy, focusing on their decision-making processes and the implications for informed consent.

METHODS

A nationwide qualitative study was conducted in Switzerland, involving in-depth interviews with women who were 1 to 2 years post-partum, covered by basic compulsory Swiss insurance, including women with a migration background. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key themes and patterns in the data.

RESULTS

The findings underscore the significance of effective communication during prenatal counseling, suggesting that healthcare providers could not only convey technical information but also support women in their decision-making processes. Women need comprehensive information about genetic testing and its implications, as well as the reasons for screening during pregnancy, as there might be a need to bridge knowledge gaps and clarify misconceptions. Furthermore, the study highlights the multifaceted nature of decision-making, with women considering factors such as uncertainty, values, emotional responses, and societal support systems. The concept of acceptance emerged as a crucial theme, with some women expressing their readiness to love and accept their child, regardless of genetic anomalies or disabilities.

CONCLUSION

This study offers valuable insights into the perspectives and needs of women regarding prenatal genetic testing, screening, and counseling in Switzerland. It underscores the importance of enhancing the clinical interaction and informed consent process by providing comprehensive information, addressing misconceptions, and supporting women in decision-making about pregnancy management and the management of the child's health, following prenatal genetic testing, including NIPT. These findings can inform healthcare providers and policymakers in improving the quality of prenatal counseling, ensuring informed consent, and supporting women in making well-informed and meaningful decisions about genetic testing, and on the use of screening during pregnancy.

Genetic counseling for fetal sex prediction by NIPT: Challenges and opportunities

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has grown in ubiquity in the last decade and is now endorsed by Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as a screening tool for aneuploidy in all patients. Past studies have demonstrated a tendency among obstetrics patients to focus on the ability of NIPT to predict fetal sex chromosomes; however, data on the experiences of genetic counselors (GCs) counseling on NIPT and fetal sex prediction are limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore how GCs counsel about NIPT and fetal sex prediction, as well as the use of gender-inclusive language in this setting. A 36-item survey with multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions was distributed to GCs who currently offer NIPT to patients. Quantitative data were analyzed using R and qualitative data were manually analyzed and coded via inductive content analysis. A total of 147 individuals completed at least some portion of the survey. A majority of participants (68.5%) reported frequent interchangeable use of the terms 'sex' and 'gender' by patients. A majority (72.9%) of participants reported that they rarely or never discuss the difference between these terms in sessions (Spearman's rho = 0.17, p = 0.052). Seventy-five respondents (59.5%) indicated that they had taken continuing education courses on inclusive clinical practices for trans and gender-diverse (TGD) patients. Several themes arose from free responses; the most frequently identified themes were the need for thorough pretest counseling that properly describes the scope of NIPT and the challenge of discrepant pretest counseling by other healthcare providers. Results from our research identified challenges and misconceptions GCs face when offering NIPT and various tactics implemented to mitigate these. Our study highlighted the need for the standardization of pretest counseling regarding NIPT, additional guidance from professional organizations, and continuing education focused on gender-inclusive language and clinical practices.

Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review

Importance

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in health care has led to recognition that these tests provide personal as well as clinical utility to patients and families. However, available systematic reviews on this topic have not reported the demographic backgrounds of participants in studies of personal utility, leaving generalizability unclear.

Objective

To determine the demographic characteristics of participants in studies examining the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing in health care.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, we utilized and updated the results of a highly cited 2017 systematic review on the personal utility of genetics and genomics, which identified relevant articles published between January 1, 2003, and August 4, 2016. We also used the original methods to update this bibliography with literature published subsequently up to January 1, 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies reported empirical data on the perspectives of patients, family members, and/or the general public in the US on the personal utility of any type of health-related genetic or genomic test. We utilized a standardized codebook to extract study and participant characteristics. We summarized demographic characteristics descriptively across all studies and by subgroup based on study and participant characteristics.

Findings

We included 52 studies with 13 251 eligible participants. Sex or gender was the most frequently reported demographic characteristic (48 studies [92.3%]), followed by race and ethnicity (40 studies [76.9%]), education (38 studies [73.1%]), and income (26 studies [50.0%]). Across studies, participants disproportionately were women or female (mean [SD], 70.8% [20.5%]), were White (mean [SD], 76.1% [22.0%]), had a college degree or higher (mean [SD], 64.5% [19.9%]), and reported income above the US median (mean [SD], 67.4% [19.2%]). Examination of subgroups of results by study and participant characteristics evidenced only small shifts in demographic characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review examined the demographic characteristics of individual participants in studies of the personal utility of health-related genetic and genomic testing in the US. The results suggest that participants in these studies were disproportionately White, college-educated women with above-average income. Understanding the perspectives of more diverse individuals regarding the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing may inform barriers to research recruitment and uptake of clinical testing in currently underrepresented populations.

Patient perspectives on noninvasive prenatal testing among black women in the United States: a scoping review

Advances in reproductive health technologies such as noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) are changing the landscape of prenatal care and maternal health. NIPT, made clinically available in the United States (US) in 2011, is a screening test that utilizes cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to detect for aneuploidies and genetic characteristics in fetal DNA. In September 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended NIPT for all pregnant patients regardless of age or risk factors. We examined peer-reviewed, empirical studies published from January 2011 to February 2022, assessing NIPT studies with patient perspectives in the US and what is known about how empirical studies include Black women. Our scoping review draws from PubMed (with advanced MeSH search options) and Scopus databases for advanced scoping review, with 33 articles meeting our criteria. Empirical studies on NIPT show patient perceptions range across five themes: 1) accuracy / safety, 2) return of results, 3) patient knowledge, 4) informed consent, and 5) perceptions among minoritized groups (with perceptions of race and gender as a social demographic intersection). Additionally, among the 15 studies that included that Black woman in their study sample, none measured the perceptions of Black women with genetic conditions. Bridging this knowledge gap is critical because NIPT is becoming increasingly accessible across the nation and is being developed to screen for additional genetic conditions, such as sickle cell disease. Ultimately, NIPT researchers need to go to greater lengths to examine the patient perspectives of Black women with and without genetic conditions.

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.

Experiences of non-invasive prenatal screening: A survey study

BACKGROUND

In Australia, using non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to screen for fetal abnormalities is becoming more commonplace. However, there is a lack of standardised procedures surrounding pre-test counselling. This holds the potential for variability in pregnant people's experiences when undergoing NIPT, which subsequently may impact their ability to make informed decisions surrounding NIPT results.

AIM

This study sought to characterise the experiences of Australian women undergoing NIPT, including perceptions of informed choice, counselling experiences and decision to undergo NIPT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Australian women who had been recently pregnant (n = 94) completed an online survey which assessed: their knowledge of and attitude toward NIPT; satisfaction with counselling; satisfaction with their decision; and decisional conflict to undergo NIPT. The survey also allowed participants to provide qualitative information about their counselling experience and reasons for undergoing NIPT.

RESULTS

Overall, participants had good knowledge of and positive attitudes toward NIPT, experienced low decisional conflict and were overall satisfied with their counselling experience and decision to undergo NIPT. However, some participants expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of information provided, and biased language, by counselling providers. The desire to be informed was the most frequent reason for undergoing NIPT.

CONCLUSION

The provision of accurate and objective information in pre-test counselling is important to reduce decisional conflict and improve satisfaction with the decision to undergo NIPT. It is recommended counselling providers present pregnant people with neutral, objective, and accurate information at the time of pre-test counselling.