First-trimester screening based on cell-free DNA vs combined screening: A randomized clinical trial on women's experience

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.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making

The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including "non-medical" traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative impacts on the child, family, and society; and issues with implementation. We then outline the case for permitting the use of NIPT for these traits. These include arguments for reproductive liberty and autonomy; questioning the labeling of traits as "non-medical"; and the principle of procreative beneficence. This summary of the case for and against can serve as a basis for the development of a consistent and coherent ethical framework.

Current Perspectives of Prenatal Cell-free DNA Screening in Clinical Management of First-Trimester Septated Cystic Hygroma

First-trimester septated cystic hygroma occurs in approximately 1 in 268 pregnancies and has long been associated with a markedly increased risk of fetal aneuploidy and, among euploid fetuses, an increased risk of structural anomalies primarily affecting the cardiac and skeletal systems. Invasive prenatal diagnosis – chorionic villus sampling and/or amniocentesis – encompasses the time-honored clinical tools for the next step in management following prenatal sonographic diagnosis of first-trimester septated cystic hygroma. Currently, prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for fetal aneuploidy with select microdeletions is gradually replacing the considerably less sensitive, and labor-intensive combined first-trimester screening. These new technologies have opened potential new venues in the clinical management of this ominous late first-trimester sonographic diagnosis. Advances in cfDNA technologies are now permitting detection of chromosomal copy number variants (CNV) larger than 7Mb across genome and select serious single-gene disorders (mainly impacting skeletal and neurological development), affecting quality of life and may benefit from medical and/or surgical management. This commentary will address the available non-invasive prenatal screening technologies, which clearly enhance immediate genetic analysis modalities applicable in the presence of the complex sonographic finding of first-trimester septated cystic hygroma.

Patient experience with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a primary screen for aneuploidy in the Netherlands

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a screening method for trisomy 21 and other chromosomal abnormalities has been adopted widely across the globe. However, while many clinical validation studies have been performed, less is known regarding the patient experience with NIPT. This study explored how individuals experience NIPT in a pre- and post-test setting, where NIPT is broadly available as a primary screening method with the option of reporting beyond common trisomies.

Methods

Participants were recruited using social media with a strategy designed to select individuals who had the option to have NIPT as part of the TRIDENT-2 study (In the Netherlands, NIPT is only available within the TRIDENT studies executed by the NIPT consortium. This research was done independently from the NIPT consortium.) in the Netherlands. The study used online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Both were developed around a patient experience framework consisting of seven themes: information, patient as active participant, responsiveness of services, lived experience, continuity of care and relationships, communication, and support.

Results

Overall, 4539 questionnaire responses were analyzed and 60% of the respondents had experienced NIPT. Of those, 1.7% received a high-risk result for trisomy or another chromosomal copy number variant (referred to as an “additional finding”). Overall, participants felt they had received sufficient information and had control over their decision regarding whether or not to choose NIPT. The vast majority of respondents who had NIPT were positive about their experience and would use it again. Those with results showing an increased probability for trisomy or additional findings were more likely to report negative feelings such as tension and anxiety, and less likely to feel that they had been sufficiently prepared for the implications of their results.

Conclusions

The patient experience with first-tier NIPT in the Netherlands was largely positive. Areas for improvement included counseling on the implications of screening and the different possible outcomes of NIPT, including additional findings that may be uncovered by expanding NIPT beyond the common trisomies. The experiences reported in this study may be useful for other countries intending to implement NIPT.