Changing to NIPT as a first-tier screening test and future perspectives: opinions of health professionals

Issues associated with possible implementation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in first-tier screening: A rapid scoping review

In recent years, as the implementation and use of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) have increased, the cost of the test has been decreasing. The cost of NIPT is expected to fall further in the upcoming years. As a result of the decreasing cost of NIPT, many jurisdictions may change their prenatal screening policies toward abandoning serum-based screening and instead, implement and support NIPT as the first-tier screening for all women. There are several concerns in replacing first-trimester screening with NIPT. In this scoping review, we aimed to map the existing knowledge about possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening and to assess if any jurisdiction has altered its policy and discontinued serum-based prenatal screening in exchange for NIPT. The Medline database (Ovid) and Google Scholar was searched and all the studies discussing, investigating, or reporting on the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening were included. All the studies went through a two-stage screening process and included full-text articles were reviewed. We did not find any articles indicating a country or region that replaced traditional prenatal screening by NIPT. The included articles were charted, and the data about the possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening are summarized narratively and presented in tables in four categories. The findings of this scoping review may be informative for stakeholders and policymakers regarding recent changes in NIPT implementation policies around the world and may aid with developing policy for NIPT implementation with a broader perspective.

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

Pregnant women’s perspectives should be included in the dialogue surrounding the expanding offers of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), especially now that technological possibilities are rapidly increasing. This study evaluated women’s experiences with the offer of genome-wide (GW) first-tier NIPT in a national screening program. A nationwide pre-and post-test questionnaire was completed by 473 pregnant women choosing between targeted NIPT (trisomies 21, 18 and 13 only) and GW-NIPT (also other findings) within the Dutch TRIDENT-2 study. Measures included satisfaction, reasons for or against choosing GW-NIPT, anxiety, and opinion on the future scope of NIPT. Most respondents (90.4%) were glad to have been offered the choice between GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT; 76.5% chose GW-NIPT. Main reasons to choose GW-NIPT were ‘wanting as much information as possible regarding the child’s health’ (38.6%) and ‘to be prepared for everything’ (23.8%). Main reasons to choose targeted NIPT were ‘avoiding uncertain results/outcomes’ (33.7%) and ‘not wanting to unnecessarily worry’ (32.6%). Nearly all respondents received a low-risk NIPT result (98.7%). No differences were found in anxiety between women choosing GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT. Most respondents were favorable toward future prenatal screening for a range of conditions, including life-threatening disorders, mental disabilities, disorders treatable in pregnancy and severe physical disabilities, regardless of their choice for GW-NIPT or targeted NIPT. In conclusion, women who chose first-tier NIPT were satisfied with the choice between GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT, and most women were favorable toward a broader future screening offer. Our results contribute to the debate concerning the expansion of NIPT.

First Trimester Screening - Current Status and Future Prospects After Introduction of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) at a Tertiary Referral Center

Objective To investigate the uptake of different components of first trimester screening (FTS) and the impact on invasive diagnostic testing (IPT) since the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at a level III center. Methods Retrospective data analysis was conducted for singleton pregnancies that presented for FTS between 01/2019-12/2019 (group 1, n = 990). Patients were categorized into three risk groups: low risk for trisomy 21 (< 1 : 1000), intermediate risk (1 : 101-1 : 1000) and high risk (≥ 1 : 100). Uptake of NIPT and IPT was analyzed for each of the risk groups. Results were compared to a previous cohort from 2012/2013 (immediately after the introduction of NIPT, group 2, n = 1178). Results Group 1 showed a significant increase in the use of NIPT as part of FTS (29.5% vs. 3.7% for group 2, p = 0.001) in all three risk groups. Overall IPT rates were lower in group 1 (8.6%) vs. group 2 (11.3%, p = 0.038), mainly due to a significant reduction of IPT in the intermediate risk group. IPT rates in the high-risk group remained stable over time. Conclusion Appropriate clinical implementation of NIPT is still currently a challenge for prenatal medicine experts. Our data suggest that widespread uptake of NIPT is becoming more common these days; however, a contingent approach might prevent redundant uptake.

Nationwide implementation of the non-invasive prenatal test: Evaluation of a blended learning program for counselors

This study assesses the results of a mandatory blended learning-program for counselors (e.g. midwives, sonographers, obstetricians) guiding national implementation of the Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (NIPT). We assessed counselors’ 1) knowledge about prenatal aneuploidy screening, 2) factors associated with their knowledge (e.g. counselors’ characteristics, attitudes towards NIPT), and 3) counselors’ attitudes regarding the blended learning. A cross-sectional online pretest-posttest implementation survey was sent to all 2,813 Dutch prenatal counselors. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify associations between counselors’ knowledge and e.g. their professional backgrounds, work experience and attitudes towards NIPT. At T0 and T1 1,635 and 913 counselors completed the survey, respectively. Overall results show an increased mean number of correct answered knowledge questions; 23/35 (66%) items at T0 and 28/37 (76%) items at T1. Knowledge gaps on highly specific topics remained. Work experience and secondary care work-setting were positively associated with a higher level of knowledge. Most counselors (74%) showed positive attitudes towards the blended learning program. The mandatory blended learning, along with learning by experience through implementation of NIPT, has facilitated an increase in counselors’ knowledge and was well received. New implementations in healthcare may benefit from requiring blended learning for healthcare providers, especially if tailored to professionals’ learning goals.

The implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands prenatal screening is offered as a mean to increase reproductive choices of couples. All women are counseled on the existing options by trained midwives. The government puts a great emphasis on informed choice and on womens' opinions and reactions to screenings options. Since 2017 non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT, cf-DNA) is offered as first tier screening for aneuploidies in the genome-wide (GW) variant at the cost of 175 Euro's. Uptake is around 50%. This screenings offer is perceived as unconventional for the traditionally cautious Dutch system.

Preconception expanded carrier screening: a focus group study with relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients and the general population

Preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS) enables prospective parents to assess their risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive disorder. Knowledge on motivations, feelings, and considerations people have towards the offer and use of ECS is limited. To enrich the public and professional discussion on ECS implementation, this study explored the perspectives towards various aspects of ECS in seven focus groups compromising first- and second-degree relatives of MPS III patients (N=9, N=4, N=5, N=5) and members of the general Dutch population (N=6, N=7, N=5). The focus groups were audio recorded and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. Both relatives of MPS III patients and participants from the general population supported offering ECS, in particular for severe, childhood-onset disorders. Important barriers identified for ECS were a lack of genetic knowledge and a perceived lack of personal relevance and awareness, as well as out-of-pocket costs of testing. The majority of participants would prefer full disclosure of individual test results instead of couple-based test results. Moreover, offering people a choice for the way of reporting was proposed. All participants agreed that more efforts, for example by governmental campaigns, should be made to increase awareness on the availability, potentials, and limitations of ECS. Educating prospective parents about ECS is essential for increasing awareness and informed decision making. This study provides valuable insights that can be used by governments and public health authorities when considering implementation of preconception ECS.

Effect of education and attitude on health professionals' knowledge on prenatal screening

INTRODUCTION

Ongoing developments in prenatal anomaly screening necessitate continuous updating of counsellors’ knowledge. We explored the effect of a refresher counselling course on participants’ knowledge of prenatal screening.

METHODS

We investigated the association between knowledge and counsellors’ working experience. Also, the association between knowledge and counsellors’ attitude towards prenatal screening was determined. All counsellors in the North-West region of the Netherlands were invited to attend a refresher counselling course and fill in both a pre-course and a post-course questionnaire. The participants consisted of midwifes, sonographers and gynaecologists. A 55-item questionnaire assessed pre-course (T0) and post-course (T1) knowledge. At T0, counsellors’ attitude towards the prenatal screening program was assessed and its association with knowledge analysed.

RESULTS

Of 387 counsellors, 68 (18%) attended the course and completed both questionnaires. Knowledge increased significantly from 77.7% to 84.6% (p<0.01). Scores were lowest regarding congenital heart diseases. Participants with ultrasound experience scored higher on T0, but improvement was seen in participants with and without ultrasound experience. Participants with a positive attitude towards a free-of-charge first trimester combined test had higher knowledge scores than participants with a negative attitude (62% vs 46%; p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

A refresher course improved counsellors’ knowledge on prenatal screening. Ultrasound experience and a positive attitude towards free screening may be associated with higher knowledge levels. Participating in a mandatory refresher counselling course is useful for the continuous improvement of healthcare practitioners’ knowledge. More research on the effect of knowledge and attitude on the quality of prenatal screening is necessary.

Governing the futures of non-invasive prenatal testing: An exploration of social acceptability using the Delphi method

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers numerous benefits to pregnant women and their families. It also raises ethical, legal and social concerns regarding, for instance, the possible effects of a routinization of prenatal genetic testing on free and informed decision-making by prospective parents, and the role of the state in governing its use. Technological advances are allowing cfDNA analyses to detect an increasing number of genetic risks and conditions in the fetus, potentially further exacerbating such concerns. From May 2015 to December 2016, we conducted a three-round Policy Delphi study (N_R1 = 61, N_R2 = 58, N_R3 = 47; overall retention rate = 77.0%) to explore the social acceptability (SA) of current and potential future uses of NIPT in Canada according to participants with relevant professional, research or advocacy expertise. Participants came from four groups: healthcare professionals (N_R3 = 14), social sciences and humanities researchers (N_R3 = 13), patients/disability rights advocates (N_R3 = 14), and cultural/religious communities advocates (N_R3 = 6). This paper presents SA criteria and contextual contingencies relevant to the assessment of NIPT's SA according to the group. It also reports what uses (conditions or motives) participants thought should be banned, permitted, publicly funded, or promoted as a public health strategy. According to them, conditions resulting in severe pain or early death, as well as trisomies (13, 18, 21) and sex chromosome abnormalities, should be covered by Canadian public health insurance. However, there was wide agreement that direct-to-consumer NIPT should be legally banned, and that testing for fetal sex for non-medical reasons using NIPT should be either proscribed or discouraged. In addition to identifying areas of consensus, our results point to disagreement regarding, for instance, the required level of governance of whole-genome sequencing and testing for late onset conditions with low penetrance. This study also provides a model for exploring the SA of emerging technologies using the Policy Delphi method.

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope

The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision‐making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi‐structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co‐payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.

New screen on the block: non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a new screen for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. It is a screening test based on technology that involves the analysis of feto-placental DNA that is present in maternal blood. This DNA is then analysed for abnormalities of specific chromosomes (eg 13, 18, 21, X, Y). NIPT has a much higher screening capability for chromosomal abnormalities than current combined first trimester screening, with ~99% sensitivity for trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and at least a 10-fold higher positive predictive value. The low false-positive rate (1-3%) is one of the most advertised advantages of NIPT. In practice, this could lead to a significant reduction in the number of false-positive tests and the need for invasive diagnostic procedures. NIPT is now suitable for singleton and twin pregnancies and can be performed from ~10 weeks in a pregnancy. NIPT is not currently publicly funded in most countries. However, the increasing availability of NIPT commercially will likely lead to an increase in demand for this as a screening option. Given the high numbers of women who visit a general practitioner (GP) in their first trimester, GPs are well-placed to also offer NIPT as a screening option. A GP's role in facilitating access to this service will likely be crucial in ensuring equity in access to this technology, and it is important to ensure that they are well supported to do so.

Limits to the scope of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): an analysis of the international ethical framework for prenatal screening and an interview study with Dutch professionals

Background

The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for foetal aneuploidies is currently changing the field of prenatal screening in many countries. As it is non-invasive, safe and accurate, this technique allows for a broad implementation of first-trimester prenatal screening, which raises ethical issues, related, for instance, to informed choice and adverse societal consequences. This article offers an account of a leading international ethical framework for prenatal screening, examines how this framework is used by professionals working in the field of NIPT, and presents ethical guidance for the expansion of the scope of prenatal screening in practice.

Methods

A comparative analysis of authoritative documents is combined with 15 semi-structured interviews with professionals in the field of prenatal screening in the Netherlands. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

The current ethical framework consists of four pillars: the aim of screening, the proportionality of the test, justice, and societal aspects. Respondents recognised and supported this framework in practice, but expressed some concerns. Professionals felt that pregnant women do not always make informed choices, while this is seen as central to reproductive autonomy (the aim of screening), and that pre-test counselling practices stand in need of improvement. Respondents believed that the benefits of NIPT, and of an expansion of its scope, outweigh the harms (proportionality), which are thought to be acceptable. They felt that the out-of-pocket financial contribution currently required by pregnant women constitutes a barrier to access to NIPT, which disproportionally affects those of a lower socioeconomic status (justice). Finally, professionals recognised but did not share concerns about a rising pressure to test or discrimination of disabled persons (societal aspects).

Conclusions

Four types of limits to the scope of NIPT are proposed: NIPT should generate only test outcomes that are relevant to reproductive decision-making, informed choice should be (made) possible through adequate pre-test counselling, the rights of future children should be respected, and equal access should be guaranteed. Although the focus of the interview study is on the Dutch healthcare setting, insights and conclusions can be applied internationally and to other healthcare systems.

Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of 'routinisation' in prenatal screening

In the debate surrounding the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in prenatal screening programmes, the concept of routinisation is often used to refer to concerns and potential negative consequences of the test. A literature analysis shows that routinisation has many different meanings, which can be distinguished in three major versions of the concept. Each of these versions comprises several inter-related fears and concerns regarding prenatal screening and particularly regarding NIPT in three areas: (1) informed choice, (2) freedom to choose and (3) consequences for people with a disability. Three of the strongest arguments raised under the flag of routinisation are assessed for their validity: the threat that NIPT poses to informed choice, the potential increase in uptake of first-trimester prenatal screening and its consequences for social pressure to participate in screening or terminate affected pregnancies, and the negative consequences for disabled people. These routinisation arguments lack empirical or normative ground. However, the results of this analysis do not imply that no attention should be paid to possible problems surrounding the introduction of NIPT. At least two problems remain and should be addressed: there should be an ongoing debate about the requirements of informed choice, particularly related to an expanded scope of prenatal screening. Also, reproductive autonomy can only be achieved when expecting parents' options are variegated, real and valuable, so that they can continue to choose whether or not to screen or to terminate a pregnancy.

Origin and clinical relevance of chromosomal aberrations other than the common trisomies detected by genome-wide NIPS: results of the TRIDENT study

PurposeNoninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA in maternal blood is highly sensitive for detecting fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13. Using a genome-wide approach, other chromosome anomalies can also be detected. We report on the origin, frequency, and clinical significance of these other chromosome aberrations found in pregnancies at risk for trisomy 21, 18, or 13.MethodsWhole-genome shallow massively parallel sequencing was used and all autosomes were analyzed.ResultsIn 78 of 2,527 cases (3.1%) NIPS was indicative of trisomy 21, 18, or 13, and in 41 (1.6%) of other chromosome aberrations. The latter were of fetal (n = 10), placental (n = 22), maternal (n = 1) or unknown (n = 7). One case lacked cytogenetic follow-up. Nine of the 10 fetal cases were associated with an abnormal phenotype. Thirteen of the 22 (59%) placental aberrations were associated with fetal congenital anomalies and/or poor fetal growth ( Collapse

Key Words

• confined placental mosaicism; genome-wide nips
• noninvasive testing
• prenatal screening
• trisomy 21

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Chromosome Aberrations
• Chromosome Disorders/diagnosis
• Chromosome Disorders/genetics
• DNA Copy Number Variations
• Female
• Genetic Testing/methods
• Genomics/methods
• Humans
• Placenta/metabolism
• Pregnancy
• Pregnancy Outcome
• Prenatal Diagnosis/methods
• Trisomy
• Whole Genome Sequencing

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Diane Van Opstal Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Merel C van Maarle Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Klaske Lichtenbelt Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Marjan M Weiss Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Heleen Schuring-Blom Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Shama L Bhola Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mariette J V Hoffer Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Karin Huijsdens-van Amsterdam Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Merryn V Macville Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Angelique J A Kooper Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Brigitte H W Faas Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Lutgarde Govaerts Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Gita M Tan-Sindhunata Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Nicolette den Hollander Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Ilse Feenstra Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Robert-Jan H Galjaard Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Dick Oepkes Department of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Stijn Ghesquiere Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Rutger W W Brouwer Erasmus Center for Biomics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Lean Beulen Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Sander Bollen Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Martin G Elferink Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Roy Straver Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lidewij Henneman Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Godelieve C Page-Christiaens Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Erik A Sistermans Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Collapse

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing into publicly funded antenatal screening services for Down syndrome and other conditions in Aotearoa New Zealand

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a relatively new screen for congenital conditions – specifically, common fetal aneuploidies including Down Syndrome. The test is based on isolating freely circulating fragments of fetal-placental DNA that is present in the mother’s blood. NIPT has a superior clinical performance compared to current screening, and has been available privately in Aotearoa New Zealand for the last 4 years.

Main issue

The proposed implementation of NIPT as a publicly funded service may widen the inequity in access to optional antenatal screening that already exists in this country.

Conclusion

This paper discusses precautions that can be taken at the health system, organisation, and personnel levels to ensure that access to NIPT is equitable, that services are culturally responsive, and women’s informed choice is promoted and protected. The adoption of NIPT into publicly funded services is an example of how genetic screening is becoming mainstreamed into health services; as such our approach may also have relevance around the introduction of other genetic and genomic screening initiatives.

Views of the obstetric profession on non-invasive prenatal testing in Aotearoa New Zealand: A national survey

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) for approximately four years. It is likely to be introduced into the publicly funded prenatal screening service.

AIM

To explore obstetrician use and views of NIPT, with consideration to its implementation into screening services for Down syndrome and other conditions.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey combining Likert scales and free text was designed to assess current practice, knowledge, ethical considerations, counselling and views toward public funding of NIPT. The survey was distributed through the New Zealand members of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (n = 418) and responses collected over a two-month period in 2016.

RESULTS

There were 134/418 (32.1%) respondents. Current knowledge influenced decisions to offer NIPT (70.3%, 85/121). Confidence in offering NIPT was: 'not at all' (0.8%, 1/128); 'a little' (7.03%, 9/128), 'somewhat' (16.4%, 21/128), 'quite' (40.6%, 52/128) and 'very' (35.2%, 45/128). A total of 83.5% (101/121) stated NIPT should be publicly funded and NIPT capability developed within NZ (89.1%, 106/119). More information and support on the provision of NIPT was called for.

CONCLUSION

There was strong support for public funding of NIPT, and for NIPT capability to be developed in NZ. The call for more training, education and support needs to be actioned in order to facilitate the introduction of NIPT into screening services.

Women's Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results

Increasingly, high-risk pregnant women opt for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) instead of invasive diagnostic testing. Since NIPT is less accurate than invasive testing, a normal NIPT result might leave women less reassured. A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women with elevated risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined test (risk ≥1:200) or medical history, who were offered NIPT in the nationwide Dutch TRIDENT study. Pre- and post-test questionnaires (n = 682) included measures on: experiences with NIPT procedure, feelings of reassurance, anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), child-related anxiety (PRAQ-R), and satisfaction. The majority (96.1%) were glad to have been offered NIPT. Most (68.5%) perceived the waiting time for NIPT results (mean: 15 days, range 5–32) as (much) too long. Most women with a normal NIPT result felt reassured (80.9%) or somewhat reassured (15.7%). Levels of anxiety and child-related anxiety were significantly lower after receiving a normal NIPT result as compared to the moment of intake (p < 0.001). Women with inadequate health literacy or a medical history (e.g. previous child with trisomy) experienced significantly higher post-test-result anxiety (Mean (M) STAI = 31.6 and 30.0, respectively) compared to those with adequate health literacy (M = 28.6) and no medical history (M = 28.6), indicating these women might benefit from extra information and/or guidance when communicating NIPT test-results. Introducing NIPT as an alternative to invasive testing, led to an offer that satisfied and largely reassured high-risk pregnant women.

Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II-women's perspectives

Objective

To evaluate preferences and decision‐making among high‐risk pregnant women offered a choice between Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), invasive testing or no further testing.

Methods

Nationwide implementation study (TRIDENT) offering NIPT as contingent screening test for women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first‐trimester combined testing (>1:200) or medical history. A questionnaire was completed after counseling assessing knowledge, attitudes and participation following the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice.

Results

A total of 1091/1253 (87%) women completed the questionnaire. Of these, 1053 (96.5%) underwent NIPT, 37 (3.4%) invasive testing and 1 (0.1%) declined testing. 91.7% preferred NIPT because of test safety. Overall, 77.9% made an informed choice, 89.8% had sufficient knowledge and 90.5% had positive attitudes towards NIPT. Women with intermediate (odds ratio (OR) = 3.51[1.70–7.22], p < 0.001) or high educational level (OR = 4.36[2.22–8.54], p < 0.001) and women with adequate health literacy (OR = 2.60[1.36–4.95], p = 0.004) were more likely to make an informed choice. Informed choice was associated with less decisional conflict and less anxiety (p < 0.001). Intention to terminate the pregnancy for Down syndrome was higher among women undergoing invasive testing (86.5%) compared to those undergoing NIPT (58.4%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The majority of women had sufficient knowledge and made an informed choice. Continuous attention for counseling is required, especially for low‐educated and less health‐literate women. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What's already known about this topic?

NIPT is offered as alternative to invasive testing to screen pregnant women at high risk for fetal aneuploidy.

Although NIPT has many advantages, concerns have been raised about the consequences for informed decision‐making.

What does this study adds?

Implementation of NIPT in a national healthcare‐funded prenatal screening program, accompanied by pre‐test counseling, results in most women having sufficient knowledge and making an informed choice

Compared to women choosing invasive testing, women undergoing NIPT have less intention to terminate the pregnancy for Down syndrome.

What Do Parents of Children with Down Syndrome Think about Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)?

This study explores the attitudes of parents of children with Down syndrome towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Three focus groups (n = 16) and eleven individual interviews with Dutch parents (and two relatives) of children with Down syndrome were conducted. Safety, accuracy and earlier testing were seen as the advantages of NIPT. Some participants were critical about the practice of screening for Down syndrome, but acknowledged that NIPT enables people to know whether the fetus is affected and to prepare without risking miscarriage. Many feared uncritical use of NIPT and more abortions for Down syndrome. Concerns included the consequences for the acceptance of and facilities for children with Down syndrome, resulting in more people deciding to screen. Participants stressed the importance of good counseling and balanced, accurate information about Down syndrome. Testing for more disorders might divert the focus away from Down syndrome, but participants worried about “where to draw the line”. They also feared a loss of diversity in society. Findings show that, while parents acknowledge that NIPT offers a better and safer option to know whether the fetus is affected, they also have concerns about NIPT’s impact on the acceptance and care of children with Down syndrome.

Survey of attitudes of Chinese perinatologists and obstetricians toward non-invasive prenatal genetic testing

AIM

The clinical application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is still very limited in China. We carried out a survey to assess the willingness of Chinese obstetricians to offer NIPT and to determine how they would implement it and what resources they would need for the testing.

METHODS

Between June 2014 and June 2015, a survey was conducted at a large academic referral center with data obtained from 392 registered perinatologists and obstetricians who completed an entire questionnaire.

RESULTS

Most respondents (72.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that the percentage of women patients refusing to accept NIPT would increase if they were charged directly for the test. Most respondents (82.7%) answered affirmatively that the national health administration agencies should formulate a standard charge for NIPT. The most important factors that influence the application of NIPT are the popularity of the test and its cost. The majority of respondents indicated that there are appropriate reasons for NIPT.

CONCLUSION

The importance of NIPT and guidelines for the application of NIPT should be clarified in current clinical practice in China. Extensive education regarding NIPT application is necessary prior to mass implementation.

Maternal Plasma DNA and RNA Sequencing for Prenatal Testing

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing has recently become indispensable in diagnostic testing and screening. In the prenatal setting, this type of testing is often called noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). With a number of techniques, using either next-generation sequencing or single nucleotide polymorphism-based approaches, fetal cfDNA in maternal plasma can be analyzed to screen for rhesus D genotype, common chromosomal aneuploidies, and increasingly for testing other conditions, including monogenic disorders. With regard to screening for common aneuploidies, challenges arise when implementing NIPT in current prenatal settings. Depending on the method used (targeted or nontargeted), chromosomal anomalies other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 can be detected, either of fetal or maternal origin, also referred to as unsolicited or incidental findings. For various biological reasons, there is a small chance of having either a false-positive or false-negative NIPT result, or no result, also referred to as a "no-call." Both pre- and posttest counseling for NIPT should include discussing potential discrepancies. Since NIPT remains a screening test, a positive NIPT result should be confirmed by invasive diagnostic testing (either by chorionic villus biopsy or by amniocentesis). As the scope of NIPT is widening, professional guidelines need to discuss the ethics of what to offer and how to offer. In this review, we discuss the current biochemical, clinical, and ethical challenges of cfDNA testing in the prenatal setting and its future perspectives including novel applications that target RNA instead of DNA.