Use of the Combined First-Trimester Screen in High- and Low-Risk Patient Populations After Introduction of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Assessing the applicability of obstetrical randomized controlled trials in real-world practices

This article examines the applicability of obstetrical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the real-world and proposes a classification of the value of these trials based on their potential for achieving sustainable practices. In the context of this discussion, real-world results pertain to the potential impact of the RCT on sustainable interventions and practices, and its implications for healthcare practice or policy, in the country (or countries) that was conducted. While RCTs are generally regarded as the gold standard of medical evidence, their effectiveness in producing meaningful real-world results depends, among various other factors, on the clarity and specificity of the trial definitions used for diagnosis (characteristics of the study group or enrollment criteria) and treatment (intervention). The definitions used for diagnosis and treatment, especially in pragmatic trials, can influence the likelihood for real-world implementation. By analyzing notable obstetrical RCTs, the authors find that trials with well-defined diagnoses and treatments that can be implemented without specialized expertise are more likely to generate results that are relevant to general practice, indicating higher value. In contrast, RCTs with ambiguous or undefined diagnoses and treatments often lead to variations in practice and produce unreliable real-world outcomes and practices suggesting lower value. Recognizing this variability can offer valuable guidance for the design and evaluation of RCTs in obstetrics.

Megacystis in the first trimester of pregnancy: Prognostic factors and perinatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether bladder size is associated with an unfavorable neonatal outcome, in the case of first-trimester megacystis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study between 2009 and 2019 in two prenatal diagnosis centers. The inclusion criterion was an enlarged bladder (> 7 mm) diagnosed at the first ultrasound exam between 11 and 13+6 weeks of gestation. The main study endpoint was neonatal outcome based on bladder size. An adverse outcome was defined by the completion of a medical termination of pregnancy, the occurrence of in utero fetal death, or a neonatal death. Neonatal survival was considered as a favorable outcome and was defined by a live birth, with or without normal renal function, and with a normal karyotype.

RESULTS

Among 75 cases of first-trimester megacystis referred to prenatal diagnosis centers and included, there were 63 (84%) adverse outcomes and 12 (16%) live births. Fetuses with a bladder diameter of less than 12.5 mm may have a favorable outcome, with or without urological problems, with a high sensitivity (83.3%) and specificity (87.3%), area under the ROC curve = 0.93, 95% CI (0.86-0.99), p< 0.001. Fetal autopsy was performed in 52 (82.5%) cases of adverse outcome. In the 12 cases of favorable outcome, pediatric follow-up was normal and non-pathological in 8 (66.7%).

CONCLUSION

Bladder diameter appears to be a predictive marker for neonatal outcome. Fetuses with smaller megacystis (7-10 mm) have a significantly higher chance of progressing to a favorable outcome. Urethral stenosis and atresia are the main diagnoses made when first-trimester megacystis is observed. Karyotyping is important regardless of bladder diameter.

Uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening after the introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test: A national population-based register study

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) has shifted the prenatal screening landscape. Countries are exploring ways to integrate NIPT in their national prenatal screening programs, either as a first- or second-tier test. This study aimed to describe how the uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening changed after the introduction of NIPT as a second-tier and as a first-tier test within the national prenatal screening program of the Netherlands.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A population-based register study in the Netherlands, recording uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening. Data from all pregnant women choosing to have the first-trimester combined test (FCT) or first-tier NIPT between January 2007 and March 2019 were retrospectively collected using national registration systems. Uptake percentages for fetal aneuploidy screening (FCT and NIPT) were calculated and stratified by region and maternal age. Statistical significance was determined using trend analysis and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2013 FCT uptake increased from 14.8% to 29.5% (P = .004). In April 2014 NIPT was introduced as a second-tier test for high-risk women after FCT (TRIDENT-1 study). FCT uptake rose from 29.5% in 2013 to 34.2% in 2015 (P < .0001). After the introduction of NIPT as a first-tier test for all women in April 2017 (TRIDENT-2 study), FCT uptake declined significantly from 35.8% in 2016 to 2.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). NIPT uptake increased to 43.4% in 2018. Regionally, NIPT uptake ranged from 31.8% to 67.9%. Total uptake (FCT and NIPT) between 2007 and 2018 increased significantly from 14.8% to 45.9% (P < .0001). However, total uptake stabilized at 46% for both years of TRIDENT-2 (April 2017-March 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in total fetal aneuploidy screening uptake up to 45.9% was observed after the introduction of NIPT. Uptake appears to have stabilized within a year after introducing first-tier NIPT.

Clinical experience across the fetal-fraction spectrum of a non-invasive prenatal screening approach with low test-failure rate

OBJECTIVE

To describe our clinical experience across the entire range of fetal-fraction (FF) measurements of a non-invasive prenatal screen (NIPS) that uses whole- genome sequencing (WGS).

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively results from 58 105 singleton pregnancies that underwent NIPS on a customized WGS platform during an 8-month period and assessed clinical test performance for trisomy 21, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Pregnancy outcomes were sought for all screen-positive patients and for 18% of screen-negative patients. As differences in outcome-collection response rates could artificially impact test-performance calculations, we computed inferred sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values adjusted for ascertainment bias.

RESULTS

The screening test yielded a result for 99.9% (n = 58 048) of patients, meaning that approximately 1 in 1000 patients received a test failure (i.e. test failure rate = 0.1%). Of pregnancies with a test result, 572 (1%) screened positive for one of the common aneuploidies (362 for trisomy 21, 142 for trisomy 18 and 68 for trisomy 13). Informative outcomes were received for 237 (41.4%) patients with a screen-positive result and 3258 (5.7%) of those with a screen-negative result. In the full cohort, inferred sensitivities for trisomy 21, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 were 99.7%, 96.8% and 94.3%, respectively, and PPVs were 93.1%, 85.2% and 48.4%, respectively. If a FF threshold of 4% had been employed to guard against false negatives, calculated sensitivities for the three aneuploidies would not have changed significantly, yet, importantly, the overall test-failure rate would have increased to 6.6% (n = 3829), impacting 1 in 15 women.

CONCLUSIONS

Our clinical experience demonstrates that a customized WGS-based NIPS without a FF threshold achieves high accuracy while maintaining a low test-failure rate of 0.1%. As such, alternative strategies to ensure high accuracy of detection of common aneuploidies in samples with low FF (such as redraw after test failure, redrawing at a later gestational age, risk scoring based on FF) are not necessary for this screening approach. © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Certified Nurse-Midwives' Experiences With Provision of Prenatal Genetic Screening: A Case for Interprofessional Collaboration

Prenatal genetic screening (GS) for the most common autosomal aneuploidies encompasses maternal serum screening (MSS) and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT, or cell-free fetal DNA testing). In the United States, most maternity care is provided by obstetrician-gynecologists; however, women are increasingly utilizing the services of certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). Currently, limited research exists on midwives' experiences with providing prenatal GS. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore CNMs' experiences in providing prenatal GS. A semistructured guide focused on MSS and NIPT was used to interview a convenience sample of 13 CNMs. Results were coded and analyzed using grounded theory to elicit overarching themes. Results were organized into 6 themes describing CNMs' prenatal GS provision: (1) clinical protocols; (2) patient education; (3) patient-CNM shared decision-making process; (4) testing initiation; (5) results delivery; and (6) follow-up coordination. Key influences on midwives' perspectives on offering prenatal GS included a noninterventionist approach to pregnancy and past experiences with false-positive MSS results. Participants had an understanding of prenatal GS that was appropriate to midwifery scope of practice. Results indicate that NIPT utilization is compatible with the midwifery philosophy of noninterventionism, although midwives had limited experiences with NIPT to date.

Maternal age trends support uptake of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the low-risk population

Purpose: To examine trends in patients submitting samples for cell-free DNA screening to determine whether they reflect a shift towards NIPT use in the low-risk population. Methods: A review of demographic information was performed for all specimens submitted to the Ariosa Diagnostics clinical laboratory for the Harmony^® prenatal test between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2017. The proportions of specimens for patients under 35 years and 35 years and older were compared. Results: There was a significant increase in the proportion of specimens submitted by patients under 35, from 47.3% in 2014 to 60.3% in 2017 (Chi-square test, p < .001). Conclusions: The proportion of samples submitted to our laboratory by patients under 35 years has significantly increased in the 4-year subset, which represents the demographics of a diverse group of patients from across the globe. This suggests an increase in uptake of NIPT in the low-risk population.

Utility of ultrasound examination at 10-14 weeks prior to cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency of unexpected first-trimester ultrasound findings that would alter prenatal management in pregnant women eligible for cell-free (cf) DNA screening because of advanced maternal age (AMA).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all AMA women at a tertiary care center who had a 10-14-week ultrasound examination between 1 January 2012 and 27 April 2015. Information on pregnancy dating, obstetric ultrasound examination, prenatal screening and genetic testing were collected from a perinatal database. The primary outcome was an unexpected ultrasound finding in the first trimester that would alter the prenatal screening/testing strategy.

RESULTS

In total, 2337 women met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2462 fetuses. Sixty-eight (2.9%) women had an anomalous fetus, of which 44 (64.7%) had diagnostic testing. In the entire cohort, a non-viable pregnancy was identified in 153 (6.5%) women. Multiple gestation was identified in 32 (1.4%) women; five had a cotwin demise. Gestational dating was revised for 126 (5.4%) women. Among those who opted for aneuploidy screening (n = 1806), 68.5% had cfDNA screening and 31.5% had first-trimester screening by analysis of maternal serum biomarkers and nuchal translucency thickness. Among those eligible for cfDNA screening, 16.1% (95% CI, 15.0-18.0%; 377/2337) had an ultrasound finding (anomaly, incorrect dating, multiple gestation, non-viable pregnancy) at the time of testing that would have altered the provider's counseling regarding the prenatal screening/testing strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of AMA women eligible for cfDNA screening have fetal ultrasound findings that could alter genetic testing strategy and clinical management. This study recommends ultrasound examination prior to cfDNA screening in AMA women. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Patient choice and clinical outcomes following positive noninvasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy with cell-free DNA (cfDNA)

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate patient choices and outcomes following positive cfDNA.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort study of women with positive cfDNA through two academic centers between March 2012 and December 2014. Patients were screened based on ACOG indications. Medical records reviewed for counseling, ultrasound findings, diagnostic testing, karyotype and outcome.

RESULTS

CfDNA was positive in 114 women; 105 singletons and 9 twin pairs. CfDNA was positive for autosomal trisomy (21, 18, 13) in 96 (84.2%) and sex chromosome aneuploidy in 18 (15.8%). Certified genetic counselors performed 95% of post-cfDNA counseling. Prenatal diagnostic testing was pursued by 71/114 (62%). Karyotype was available in 91/105 (86.7%) singletons and confirmed aneuploidy in 75/91 (82.4%); the PPV of cfDNA with any ultrasound finding was 93.6% versus 58.6% without a finding. An abnormal sonographic finding was seen in 4/16 (25%) singletons with false positive cfDNA. Fetal termination occurred in 53/79 (67%) singletons and 3/5 (60%) twins with prenatal abnormal or unknown karyotype for autosomal trisomy. Eleven fetuses (11/56, 19.6%) were terminated for suspected autosomal trisomy without karyotype confirmation.

CONCLUSION

Patient choices following positive cfDNA are varied. Ultrasound modifies the PPV of cfDNA. Termination rates for aneuploidy are not higher than historical controls. Recommendation for karyotype confirmation prior to termination is not universally followed. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.