The contingent use of cell-free fetal DNA for prenatal screening of trisomies 21, 18, 13 in pregnant women within a national health service: A budget impact analysis

Maternal Reassurance, Satisfaction, and Anxiety after First-Trimester Screening for Aneuploidies: Comparison between Contingent Screening and Universal Cell-Free DNA Testing

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate maternal reassurance, satisfaction, and anxiety after two different strategies for the first-trimester screening for aneuploidies.

METHODS

Patients between 11 + 3 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestation attending the first-trimester screening at Department of Mother and Child, University Hospital Federico II, Naples, Italy have been recruited and randomly allocated to contingent screening or universal cell-free fetal DNA testing (cffDNA). Questionnaires to measure reassurance, satisfaction, and anxiety have been filled twice: (Q1) after randomization and (Q2) after receiving results. Anxiety was measured by an Italian-version short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI); child-related anxiety was measured by the 11-item Pregnancy-Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised Regardless of Parity (PRAQ-R2 scale); fear of bearing a physically or mentally handicapped child was measured considering only four items (item 4, 9, 10, and 11) of the PRAQ-R2 scale.

RESULTS

431 patients were recruited: 205 (49%) were randomized in the contingent screening arm, 226 (51%) in the cfDNA arm. Maternal reassurance, satisfaction, and anxiety were not different in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A contingent screening for aneuploidies in the first trimester seems able to ensure the same maternal reassurance and satisfaction as a cfDNA analysis in the low-risk population and to not affect maternal anxiety.

A new contingent screening strategy increased detection rate of trisomy 21 in the first trimester

BACKGROUND

Although the traditional contingent screening strategy is effective, there are still undetected low-risk trisomy 21. This study aims to define appropriate cut-off values of serum biochemical markers at low-risk and develop a strategy for sequential prenatal testing associated with first-trimester screening to increase the detection rate of trisomy 21.

METHODS

This was a 9-year retrospective analysis of singleton pregnant women who underwent serum biochemical screening or combined first-trimester screening (CFTS) in the first trimester. For the low-risk group, the cut-off values of the serum biochemical markers were adjusted to determine the appropriate detection efficiency. Gravidas with abnormal serum biochemical markers at low-risk were advised to undergo further non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS), whereas others continued with routine prenatal care.

RESULTS

When cut-off values of free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (free β-hCG) multiples of the median (MoM) or pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) MoM were defined with ≥ 2.75 or ≤ 0.5, 7.72% (2,194/28,405) in the serum biochemical screening group and 12.36% (4,005/32,403) in CFTS group could be detected as abnormal results for further NIPS. Finally, 55.56% (5/9) and 85.71% (6/7) of trisomy 21 cases with false-negative results were detected, and the overall detection rate for trisomy 21 was improved by 10.64% (5/47) and 12.77% (6/47), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The new contingent screening strategy can increase the detection rate of trisomy 21 compared with the traditional contingent screening strategy.

Noninvasive fetal genotyping of single nucleotide variants and linkage analysis for prenatal diagnosis of monogenic disorders

Background

High-cost, time-consuming and complex processes of several current approaches limit the use of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for monogenic disorders in clinical application. Thus, a more cost-effective and easily implementable approach is required.

Methods

We established a low-cost and convenient test to noninvasively deduce fetal genotypes of the mutation and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) loci by means of targeted amplification combined with deep sequencing of maternal genomic and plasma DNA. The sequential probability ratio test was performed to detect the allelic imbalance in maternal plasma. This method can be employed to directly examine familial pathogenic mutations in the fetal genome, as well as infer the inheritance of parental haplotypes through a group of selected SNPs linked to the pathogenic mutation.

Results

The fetal mutations in 17 families with different types of monogenic disorders including hemophilia A, von Willebrand disease type 3, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, hyper-IgM type 1, glutaric acidemia type I, Nagashima-type palmoplantar keratosis, and familial exudative vitreoretinopathy were identified in the study. The mutations included various forms: point mutations, gene inversion, deletions/insertions and duplication. The results of 12 families were verified by sequencing of amniotic fluid samples, the accuracy of the approach in fetal genotyping at the mutation and SNPs loci was 98.85% (172/174 loci), and the no-call rate was 28.98% (71/245 loci). The overall accuracy was 12/12 (100%). Moreover, the approach was successfully applied in plasma samples with a fetal fraction as low as 2.3%.

Conclusions

We have shown in this study that the approach is a cost-effective, less time consuming and accurate method for NIPD of monogenic disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40246-022-00400-4.

A Retrospective Analysis Of Different Contingent Screening Models For Fetal Down Syndrome In Southwestern China

To discuss combinations of traditional screening and noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) and to compare which traditional screening is the most suitable first-line screening approach to NIPS, pregnant women were recruited in this retrospective observational study. Pregnant women underwent one of four traditional screening tests. The 9 contingent models were combined by high risk cut-offs of 1:50, 1:100, 1:270 and intermediate risk cut-offs of 1:1000, 1:1500, 1:2000. We analyzed cost and performance of various screening models with contingent screening of different risk cut-offs. Compared with other screening tests, combined first-trimester screening (CFTS) had the lowest proportion of high risk (≥1:270) with the highest detection rate (DR) (78.79%) and the lowest proportion of intermediate risk (1:271~1:1000). When intermediate risk was 1:51 ~1:1500, CFTS as first-line screening had the lowest cost with DR of 93.94%. Other screening tests as the first-line screening with intermediate risk of 1:51~1:1000 had the lowest cost, there DR were 90.91%, 84.62%, 91.67%, respectively. Our study demonstrated if only one traditional screening was allowed to screen pregnant women, CFTS was recommended as the first choice. According to local health and economic conditions, adopting appropriate traditional screening with suitable cut-offs as first-line screening will contributed to a cost-effective screening model.

First-trimester screening-biomarkers and cell-free DNA

Background: The introduction of cell-free DNA into clinical practice has changed the screening approach. Healthcare professionals and future parents tend to overestimate NIPT (noninvasive prenatal testing) capabilities despite its relatively high cost and limited information.Objective: In this review, our aim was to survey how various countries have introduced contingent screening models and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the combined screening test and the use of NIPT.Data source: The Web of Science, PubMed database and institutional websites were searched for information regarding screening approaches and the implementation in different countries.Results: There are nine countries and regions that have already approved contingent screening test, while others (e.g. Australia) are discussing the implementation of contingent screening versus universal use of NIPT. There are several recent meta-analyses debating whether to use NIPT for universal screening for trisomies and other fetal conditions.Conclusions: NIPT is a reasonable option as an advanced screening test for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 only. Introducing screening by NIPT instead of a first-trimester screening will cause the loss of other valuable information including accurate dating of pregnancy, diagnosing major structural fetal abnormalities and multiple pregnancies at an early gestational age. Additionally, the opportunity to screen for early preeclampsia will be lost. Currently, the price for NIPT is still high adding extra strain on publicly funded health systems.