UK NHS pilot study on cell-free DNA testing in screening for fetal trisomies: factors affecting uptake

Pregnant people's views and knowledge on prenatal screening for fetal trisomy in the absence of a national screening program

Multiple non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT) are available to screen for risk of fetal trisomy, however, there is no national prenatal screening program in Republic of Ireland. This study aimed to analyze pregnant people's opinions on availability, cost, and knowledge of NIPT for fetal aneuploidy. An anonymous questionnaire on prenatal screening tests and termination of pregnancy was distributed to patients attending antenatal clinics at a tertiary hospital. Descriptive analyses and chi-squared tests were completed. Among respondents, 62% (200/321) understood the scope of prenatal screening tests, with 77% (251/326) and 76% (245/323) correctly interpreting low- and high-risk test results, respectively. Only 26% (83/319) of participants had heard of NIPT. Chi-square tests showed a higher proportion of these people were ≥40 years old (p-value, <0.001), had post-graduate education (p-value, <0.001), or attended private clinics (p-value <0.001). Over 91% (303/331) of participants said every pregnant person should be offered prenatal screening tests for aneuploidy and 88% (263/299) believed these should be free. While pregnant Irish individuals have reasonable understanding of screening test interpretation, most were unaware of screening options. Additionally, participants' views on availability and associated cost of tests show the need for a national prenatal screening program, including education on fetal aneuploidy. These findings have relevance for countries without screening policies and are pertinent for broader maternity services.

Factors Influencing the Decision-Making Process for Undergoing Invasive Prenatal Testing

Invasive prenatal testing, amniocentesis, and chorionic villus sampling offer insights into fetal genetic integrity and health, but carry inevitable minor risks of miscarriage and infection, thus complicating the decision-making process for parents. Previous research has revealed several factors that influence the decision to undergo invasive prenatal testing, including demographic, clinical, and psychological aspects, and attitudes towards testing. Informed choice, involving understanding options and aligning them with personal values, is crucial, with healthcare providers playing a key role in offering unbiased information. This systematic review aims to gather and synthesize literature data on the above factors to draw conclusions to aid antenatal care providers in supporting couples to make more informed decisions about their prenatal care. A systematic search was performed in PubMed and PsycInfo databases using the appropriate keywords and an in-depth evaluation of the studies retrieved followed. Finally, 17 articles were eligible for our review investigating the decision-making process of invasive prenatal testing. Factors like maternal age, education, and ethnicity are pivotal during the decision-making process. Clinical characteristics also influence decisions and women with pregnancies categorized as high-risk or those who have undergone fertility treatment display a preference for invasive testing. There seems to be a direct correlation between a woman's willingness to consider pregnancy termination, deeply rooted in psychological and moral stances, and the inclination to undergo invasive testing. In the patient decision-making process, the provision and depth of knowledge are of paramount importance. A comprehensive understanding facilitates more informed decisions. Finally, attitudes towards termination of pregnancy, as another factor influencing the decision-making process, reveal a nuanced landscape where personal beliefs, religious considerations, legal restrictions, and perspectives on disability converge. Within this complex context, religion emerges as an important determinant, shaping individuals' views on the morality of abortion. This review sheds light on the most important factors influencing the couples' consent for invasive prenatal testing. Healthcare professionals must identify which factors are critical in every specific case among several sociodemographic, clinical, emotional, and religious factors. Thus, they will be able to provide balanced and comprehensive information to help couples under this stressful procedure. We advocate for a patient-centered multidisciplinary approach while navigating couples through the intricate landscape of decision-making concerning invasive prenatal testing.

Testing Times: The Social Life of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a genomic technology used to predict the chance of a foetus having a genetic condition. Despite the immediacy of this technology’s integration into clinical practice, there is a dearth of evidence outlining how both patients and professionals experience NIPT on the ground. In this article, we draw upon our collective empirical research—specifically on earlier screening technologies (BKR), Down syndrome screening (GT), genetic screening/testing (JL) and NIPT (HS)—to outline the most pressing and often controversial issues which, we argue, remain unresolved and vital to consider regarding NIPT. We begin with a brief introduction to NIPT as a prenatal technology and the bodies of literature which unpack its ‘social life’. In what follows, BKR discusses NIPT within the context of her research on ‘the tentative pregnancy’ and diagnostic testing in the USA. In the following sections, GT, HS and JL identify different, but related, concerns with respect to NIPT, particularly around routinisation, commercialisation, choice, abortion, and configurations of disability and ‘normalcy’.

Non invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common aneuploidies and beyond

Non invasive prenatal Testing (NIPT) is changing the practice of prenatal diagnosis worldwide. It provides high sensitivity and specificity in screening for common aneuploidies. As a result, it has reduced the number of invasive procedures, thereby reducing their associated risk of pregnancy miscarriage. NIPT is based on the detection and analysis of cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) that is obtained from a maternal peripheral blood sample. Advanced laboratory detection and purification technology has improved the performance of NIPT and allowed the introduction of new applications in recent years. The introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) into clinical practice has rendered NIPT to have high sensitivity in the screening of aneuploidy. It has also allowed detecting and investigating the fetal genome from maternal plasma. Fetal Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) provides non invasive prenatal diagnosis of inherited monogenic disorders and can also offer a diagnosis of an underlying cause of fetal anomalies that have a normal karyotype. The following will review the current and potential future applications of NIPT and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various NIPT techniques. The role of public healthcare system plays in the provision of the test, and the psychological impact of NIPT on the end-users will also be highlighted.

Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review

This review examines the factors that affect the decision-making process of parental couples evaluating prenatal screening and diagnostic tests. A systematic search was performed using PubMed and PsycInfo databases. The 46 included studies had to: investigate the decision-making process about prenatal testing; focus on tests detecting trisomy 21, 18, 13, and abnormalities of sex chromosomes; be published in English peer-reviewed journals. The decision-making process seems composed of different levels: an individual level with demographic, clinical, and psychological aspects; a contextual level related to the technical features of the test and the information received; a relational level involving family and society.

Cell-Free DNA Testing: What Is the Reason Why High-Risk Women Choose It?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study wasto describe the past medical history, sociodemographic, and pregnancy characteristics of women at high risk for aneuploidy and to determine which factors are related to her choice of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing instead of invasive diagnostic testing.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective descriptive study including pregnant women from the Western Barcelona public health area at high risk for fetal aneuploidy, defined as a trisomy 21 or 18 risk between 1/10 and 1/250 at the combined first-trimester or at the second-trimester biochemical screening. During 1 year (December 2018 to November 2019), these women were asked to fill in a confidential questionnaire about her past medical history, demographic and pregnancy characteristics, and her opinion about termination of the pregnancy after a counseling consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in which advantages and disadvantages of both testing methods, cfDNA or diagnostic testing, were discussed. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which factors were related with cfDNA uptake.

RESULTS

During the study period, 82 pregnant women filled the questionnaire. The median maternal age was 39.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 37.3-40.9 years), and 73 (89%) of them were 35 years or older. Forty-three (52%) women opted for cfDNA testing, while 39 (48%) chose invasive diagnosis. In a logistic regression analysis, the use of assisted reproductive techniques (OR 13.03; 95% CI: 1.47-115.56; p = 0.021) and Latin American origin (OR 6.66; 95% CI 1.73-25.66; p = 0.006) were shown to be related to a higher cfDNA uptake. In contrast, nonreligious women (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; p = 0.013) and a favorable opinion about termination of pregnancy (OR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.92; p = 0.037) were related with a lower uptake.

CONCLUSION

Half of the pregnant women at high risk for fetal aneuploidy opted for cfDNA testing. The main reason to choose cfDNA was avoiding the risk of pregnancy loss. Women using assisted reproductive techniques and those of Latin American origin preferred cfDNA testing, while nonreligious women and those with a favorable opinion on termination pregnancy preferred invasive testing.

Clinical and Economic Evaluation after Adopting Contingent Cell-Free DNA Screening for Fetal Trisomies in South Spain

INTRODUCTION

Contingent cell-free (cf) DNA screening on the basis of the first-trimester combined test (FCT) results has emerged as a cost-effective strategy for screening of trisomy 21 (T21).

OBJECTIVES

To assess performance, patients' uptake, and cost of contingent cfDNA screening and to compare them with those of the established FCT.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study including all singleton pregnancies attending to their FCT for screening of T21 at 2 university hospitals in South Spain. When the FCT risk was ≥1:50, there were major fetal malformations, or the nuchal translucency was ≥3.5 mm, women were recommended invasive testing (IT); if the risk was between 1:50 and 1:270, women were recommended cfDNA testing; and for risks bellow 1:270, no further testing was recommended. Detection rate (DR), false-positive rate (FPR), patients' uptake, and associated costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

We analyzed 10,541 women, including 46 T21 cases. DR of our contingent strategy was 89.1% (41/46) at 1.4% (146/10,541) FPR. Uptake of cfDNA testing was 91.2% (340/373), and overall IT rate was 2.0%. The total cost of our strategy was €1,462,895.7, similar to €1,446,525.7 had cfDNA testing not been available.

CONCLUSIONS

Contingent cfDNA screening shows high DR, low IT rate, and high uptake at a similar cost than traditional screening.

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.

Profile of women choosing the Harmony® Prenatal Test

INTRODUCTION

The Harmony® Prenatal Test, a noninvasive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) method for major trisomies has been available since January 2013 at our unit, and tests were sent to the Ariosa Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) laboratory in California. From July 2017 onward, prenatal cfDNA has been reimbursed in Belgium for all pregnancies; however, since then samples are sent to a local laboratory. Little data are available on patient's profile and choices toward cfDNA and on the performance of local technology transfer centers. Areas covered: The profiles and choices of women regarding this test were evaluated. Further, the performance of cfDNA at the local laboratory was compared to the one in California. Our results showed that women from the Netherlands, as compared to Belgium, were more likely to undergo cfDNA testing for maternal request and would be less likely to undergo karyotyping if cfDNA were unavailable, therefore are better candidates for cfDNA testing, when this is used as first-line screening. Expert commentary: Our findings highlight the importance of conducting these types of studies, before decisions about clinical implementation are made by national governments and ministries of health.

Cell-free DNA and contingent screening: Our first year

INTRODUCTION

Analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from maternal blood has showed a great potential as a screening method for fetal aneuploidies. cfDNA can be used as a first line screening tool or in a contingent model, after the combined test.

METHODS

Prospective study of women attending for first trimester combined screening in our Hospital, in the first year of contingent cfDNA screening. According to the combined screening test result patients were divided in high-risk (offered invasive test or routine follow-up), intermediate-risk (counselled for cfDNA, invasive or routine follow-up) or low-risk (routine ultrasound follow-up). Pregnancy outcomes and performance of screening were evaluated. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also done.

RESULTS

The majority of the 1272 enrolled participants were Caucasian (82,6%), multiparous (51,7%) and the median maternal age was 30 years old. Thirty women screened high-risk and 83,3% of them opted for an invasive test. Forty-nine patients had an intermediate risk and 75,5% of them choose cfDNA testing. Our rate of invasive tests decreased from 3.5% to 2.4%.

DISCUSSION

The cut-offs used to determine high and intermediate-risk are based on a compromise between detection rate, pregnancy lost rate and cost. Above a determined cut-off in the intermediate-risk group, the cost for each additional detected trisomy case is very high. One major benefit of this contingent model was the decrease in invasive testing.

CONCLUSION

The contingent cfDNA screening model can be easily implemented in a public hospital with a low-risk population. Since cost/benefit is an important issue, further studies are needed to determine the ideal cut-off for our country.

Routine first-trimester screening for fetal trisomies in twin pregnancy: cell-free DNA test contingent on results from combined test

OBJECTIVE

To report on the routine clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis of maternal blood for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test in twin pregnancy.

METHODS

Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 was carried out in 959 twin pregnancies by assessment of a combination of maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, and serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A at 11-13 weeks' gestation in two UK NHS hospitals. Women in the high-risk group (risk ≥ 1 in 100) were offered the option of invasive testing, cfDNA testing or no further testing, and those in the intermediate-risk group (risk 1 in 101 to 1 in 2500 in the first phase of the study and 1 in 101 to 1 in 500 in the second phase) were offered cfDNA or no further testing. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or examination of the neonates.

RESULTS

In 42 (4.4%) of the 959 pregnancies, there was termination, miscarriage or stillbirth with no known karyotype or there was loss to follow-up. The 917 pregnancies with known trisomic status of both twins included six that were discordant for trisomy 21, four that were discordant for trisomy 18 and 907 with no trisomy 21, 18 or 13. Following combined screening, 47 (5.1%), 203 (22.1%) and 667 (72.7%) of the pregnancies were classified as high risk, intermediate risk and low risk, respectively. The high-risk group included five (83.3%) cases of trisomy 21 and three (75.0%) of trisomy 18. The cfDNA test was carried out in 224 pregnancies and results were provided in 214 (95.5%); this group included six pregnancies with trisomy 21, three with trisomy 18 and 206 with no trisomy 21, 18 or 13. The cfDNA test classified correctly as screen positive all six cases of trisomy 21 and two of the three with trisomy 18, and as screen negative for each of the trisomies all 206 unaffected pregnancies. Contingent screening led to prenatal detection of all cases of trisomy 21 and three of four with trisomy 18.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the feasibility of introducing cfDNA testing, contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test for major trisomies, in a routine population of twin pregnancies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Trends in the use of prenatal testing services for fetal aneuploidy in Ontario: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

In 2014, Ontario augmented its publicly funded multiple-marker screening program for prenatal aneuploidy by incorporating cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) analysis for high-risk pregnancies. We assessed trends in the use of multiple-marker screening, cffDNA screening and prenatal diagnostic testing before and after implementation of public funding.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive study based on data from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario. The study population included all pregnant women in Ontario with a singleton pregnancy and an expected date of delivery between July 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2016, with pregnancy data captured in BORN. Pregnancy losses and terminations before 20 weeks' gestation not captured in BORN were excluded. We generated descriptive statistics to show trends and regional variations in use.

RESULTS

The study sample included 534 210 singleton pregnancies. After cffDNA screening was funded for specific indications, uptake of multiple-marker screening increased slightly, from 66.5% to 68.1% (p < 0.001). Uptake of cffDNA screening among women with a positive multiple-marker screening result increased substantially, from 3.2% to 48.8% (p < 0.001). In contrast, the rate of prenatal diagnostic testing in this group decreased from 54.8% to 30.8% (p < 0.001). Although women aged 40 years or older are eligible for primary cffDNA screening, only a small decrease in the use of multiple-marker screening was observed in this group. The greatest use of cffDNA screening and greatest decline in prenatal diagnostic testing were seen in women with a level of risk for trisomy 21 of 1:101-1:200 based on multiple-marker screening.

INTERPRETATION

After public funding of cffDNA screening was implemented in Ontario, there was a significant increase in cffDNA screening and a significant decrease in prenatal diagnostic testing among women with a positive multiple-marker screening result. These changing patterns show the significant impact of public policy and funding decisions on women's choices regarding prenatal testing.

Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVES

To investigate by means of a population-based analysis of a cohort of women who underwent combined first-trimester screening (CFTS), changes in uptake of invasive prenatal diagnosis according to risk of trisomy 21 (T21) on CFTS, and prevalence and methods for ascertainment of atypical chromosome abnormalities.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using state-wide prenatal datasets from Victoria, Australia. A three-step approach was taken to analyze the data: (1) linkage of records between serum screening and diagnostic results; (2) comparison of rates of diagnostic testing according to CFTS T21 risk result category in a 2014-2015 cohort with those of a historical 2002-2004 cohort; (3) detailed analysis of atypical abnormalities in the 2014-2015 group according to CFTS T21 risk result, individual serum analyte level and other indications for invasive diagnostic testing.

RESULTS

In 2014-2015, there were 100 418 CFTS results issued for 146 776 births (68.4%). The overall prevalence of atypical chromosome abnormalities in the entire CFTS cohort was 0.10% and was highest in those with CFTS T21 risk > 1 in 10 (4.6%), or serum analyte levels < 0.2 multiples of the median (MoM) (6.9% for pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and 5.2% for beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG)). Almost half (49.2%) of women with PAPP-A < 0.2 MoM had a risk for T21 on CFTS of less than 1 in 100. The majority (55%) of atypical abnormalities occurred in women with CFTS T21 risk below 1 in 300, and were most commonly detected on ultrasound examination (47.1%).

CONCLUSION

Concerns regarding missed diagnoses of atypical chromosome abnormalities when non-invasive prenatal testing is offered after a result of high risk on CFTS can be mitigated if invasive diagnostic testing is offered to those women with CFTS T21 risk of > 1 in 100, serum PAPP-A or β-hCG < 0.2 MoM, or ultrasound-detected abnormality. This has implications for contingent models of screening. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?

BACKGROUND

Implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a highly accurate aneuploidy screening test has raised questions around whether the high uptake may result in more terminations of pregnancies and fewer births of children with Down syndrome (DS).

AIM

The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of NIPT on termination and live birth rates for DS.

METHODS

Literature reporting pregnancy outcomes following NIPT was reviewed. Termination rates were calculated for women with a high-risk NIPT result for DS. Two audits of pregnancy outcomes where NIPT indicated DS were conducted in the United Kingdom and Singapore.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies from the United States, Asia, Europe, and the United Kingdom were included in the review. Live births of children with DS were reported in 8 studies. Termination rates following NIPT were unchanged or decreased when compared to termination rates prior to the introduction of NIPT. Audits found 15 of 43 women in the United Kingdom and 2 of 6 in Singapore continued pregnancies following a high-risk NIPT result.

CONCLUSIONS

Termination rates following the detection of DS by NIPT are unchanged or decreased compared to historical termination rates. Impact on live birth rates may be minimal in settings where termination rates fall. Population-based studies are required to determine the true impact.

Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Common fetal aneuploidies include Down syndrome (trisomy 21 or T21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18 or T18), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13 or T13), Turner syndrome (45,X), Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY), Triple X syndrome (47,XXX) and 47,XYY syndrome (47,XYY). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies is standard care in many countries, but current biochemical and ultrasound tests have high false negative and false positive rates. The discovery of fetal circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in maternal blood offers the potential for genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing (gNIPT) as a more accurate screening method. Two approaches used for gNIPT are massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS) and targeted massively parallel sequencing (TMPS).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MPSS and TMPS for gNIPT as a first-tier test in unselected populations of pregnant women undergoing aneuploidy screening or as a second-tier test in pregnant women considered to be high risk after first-tier screening for common fetal aneuploidies. The gNIPT results were confirmed by a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or neonatal clinical examination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 13 databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science) from 1 January 2007 to 12 July 2016 without any language, search filter or publication type restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant full-text articles, websites of private prenatal diagnosis companies and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies could include pregnant women of any age, ethnicity and gestational age with singleton or multifetal pregnancy. The women must have had a screening test for fetal aneuploidy by MPSS or TMPS and a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or medical records from birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool). Where possible, hierarchical models or simpler alternatives were used for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five studies of 86,139 pregnant women (3141 aneuploids and 82,998 euploids) were included. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias across the four domains of the QUADAS-2 tool but applicability concerns were generally low. Of the 65 studies, 42 enrolled pregnant women at high risk, five recruited an unselected population and 18 recruited cohorts with a mix of prior risk of fetal aneuploidy. Among the 65 studies, 44 evaluated MPSS and 21 evaluated TMPS; of these, five studies also compared gNIPT with a traditional screening test (biochemical, ultrasound or both). Forty-six out of 65 studies (71%) reported gNIPT assay failure rate, which ranged between 0% and 25% for MPSS, and between 0.8% and 7.5% for TMPS.In the population of unselected pregnant women, MPSS was evaluated by only one study; the study assessed T21, T18 and T13. TMPS was assessed for T21 in four studies involving unselected cohorts; three of the studies also assessed T18 and 13. In pooled analyses (88 T21 cases, 22 T18 cases, eight T13 cases and 20,649 unaffected pregnancies (non T21, T18 and T13)), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of TMPS was 99.2% (78.2% to 100%), 90.9% (70.0% to 97.7%) and 65.1% (9.16% to 97.2%) for T21, T18 and T13, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificity was above 99.9% for T21, T18 and T13.In high-risk populations, MPSS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in 30, 28, 20 and 12 studies, respectively. In pooled analyses (1048 T21 cases, 332 T18 cases, 128 T13 cases and 15,797 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of MPSS was 99.7% (98.0% to 100%), 97.8% (92.5% to 99.4%), 95.8% (86.1% to 98.9%) and 91.7% (78.3% to 97.1%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificities (95% CI) were 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.8% (99.8% to 99.9%) and 99.6% (98.9% to 99.8%). In this risk group, TMPS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in six, five, two and four studies. In pooled analyses (246 T21 cases, 112 T18 cases, 20 T13 cases and 4282 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% CI) of TMPS was 99.2% (96.8% to 99.8%), 98.2% (93.1% to 99.6%), 100% (83.9% to 100%) and 92.4% (84.1% to 96.5%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X respectively. The clinical specificities were above 100% for T21, T18 and T13 and 99.8% (98.3% to 100%) for 45,X. Indirect comparisons of MPSS and TMPS for T21, T18 and 45,X showed no statistical difference in clinical sensitivity, clinical specificity or both. Due to limited data, comparative meta-analysis of MPSS and TMPS was not possible for T13.We were unable to perform meta-analyses of gNIPT for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY because there were very few or no studies in one or more risk groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These results show that MPSS and TMPS perform similarly in terms of clinical sensitivity and specificity for the detection of fetal T31, T18, T13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA). However, no study compared the two approaches head-to-head in the same cohort of patients. The accuracy of gNIPT as a prenatal screening test has been mainly evaluated as a second-tier screening test to identify pregnancies at very low risk of fetal aneuploidies (T21, T18 and T13), thus avoiding invasive procedures. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing methods appear to be sensitive and highly specific for detection of fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in high-risk populations. There is paucity of data on the accuracy of gNIPT as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test in a population of unselected pregnant women. With respect to the replacement of invasive tests, the performance of gNIPT observed in this review is not sufficient to replace current invasive diagnostic tests.We conclude that given the current data on the performance of gNIPT, invasive fetal karyotyping is still the required diagnostic approach to confirm the presence of a chromosomal abnormality prior to making irreversible decisions relative to the pregnancy outcome. However, most of the gNIPT studies were prone to bias, especially in terms of the selection of participants.

Development and evaluation of training resources to prepare health professionals for counselling pregnant women about non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The availability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidies is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Training health professionals to offer NIPT in a way that supports informed choice is essential for implementation. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a training package for health professionals to support the introduction of NIPT into clinical practice.

METHODS

Training on NIPT was offered to health professionals, primarily midwives, involved in Down syndrome screening and testing in eight hospitals located in England and Scotland as part of a research study evaluating the implementation of NIPT in the UK National Health Service. Training was evaluated using a mixed methods approach that included quantitative questionnaires at three time points and post-training qualitative interviews. The questionnaires measured confidence, self-perceived knowledge and actual knowledge about NIPT for Down syndrome. Interviews explored opinions about the training and experiences of offering NIPT.

RESULTS

The training provided to the health professionals was found to positively impact on their confidence in discussing NIPT with women in their clinic, and both their perceived and actual knowledge and understanding of NIPT was improved. Knowledge remained weak in four areas; cell-free fetal DNA levels increase with gestation; turnaround time for NIPT results; cell-free fetal DNA is placental in origin; and NIPT false positive rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Training materials, including a lesson plan, PowerPoint presentation and written factsheet on NIPT, have been developed and evaluated for use in educating midwives and supporting the introduction of NIPT. Implementation of training should include a greater focus on the areas where knowledge remained low. Some groups of midwives will need additional training or support to optimise their confidence in discussing NIPT with women.

Should cell-free fetal DNA be included in first trimester screening (FTS) for common trisomy? A possible scenario on 6697 women screened over 10 years

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to determine the performance of the first trimester screening (FTS) test in a general obstetrics population. Cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetic model based on implementation of the FTS test by cell-free fetal (cff) DNA was calculated.

METHODS

A total of 6697 women were screened using FTS test. A two-step strategy based upon nuchal translucency, serum screening and ultrasound assessment of nasal bone (NB) was applied. Three groups were identified (high-risk: >1:250; intermediate-risk: 1:251-1:999 and low-risk group: <1:1000). Women at intermediate-risk (1:251-1:999) underwent NB assessment and recalculation of individual risk. All women at high-risk were offered fetal karyotyping.

RESULTS

A total of 321 women (4.8%) resulted at high-risk while 480 women (7.1%) with intermediate-risk underwent assessment of the NB, which was absent in 15 fetuses. Overall, 54 aneuploidies were detected for a 96.4% sensitivity, a 96.1% specificity, a 99.9% negative predictive value and a false positive rate of 4.8%. Audit was conducted on a yearly basis and lost to follow up was 0.47% (32 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

Public health system would not be able to cover the cost of including cff DNA in women undergoing first trimester screening on universal basis. However, assuming a possible scenario based on implementation of FTS by cff DNA in women at high-risk would result in a 6-fold reduction in the number of invasive procedures while avoiding two false negative results (trisomy 21) that were diagnosed in women with intermediate-risk using current screening strategy by combined test.

Screening for trisomies 21 and 18 in a Spanish public hospital: from the combined test to the cell-free DNA test

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience in first-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18 firstly by the combined test alone and secondly by cell-free (cf) DNA testing contingent on the results from a previously performed combined test.

METHODS

Women with singleton pregnancies attending Torrejon University Hospital in Madrid, Spain, from November 2011 to January 2016, were screened for trisomy (T)21 and T18 by the combined test at 11-13 weeks. Before the introduction of cfDNA testing, women at high risk (>1 in 250) were offered invasive testing (IT) and from January 2015 they were offered cfDNA test as well as IT.

RESULTS

Combined test was performed in 6011 pregnancies. The risk was high in 202 (3.4%) cases. There was complete follow-up for 5507 (91.6%) pregnancies. Detection rate (DR) for T21 was 83.3% (15/18) and 100% (4/4) for T18. Additionally, 2/2 (100%) cases of T13 and 2/2 (100%) cases of triploidy were also detected. False positive rate (FPR) was 3.2% (174/5488). The introduction of this contingent model was followed by a 73% reduction on the IT rate in the high-risk group, from 76.3% to 20.8%.

CONCLUSION

Contingent screening for trisomies 21 and 18 by cfDNA testing at 11-13 weeks is feasible and has a lower IT rate than combined testing alone.

Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units

OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway.

DESIGN

 Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

 Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

 All pregnant women with a current Down's syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down's syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets.

RESULTS

 NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down's syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down's syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down's syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval -34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£-46 000, £-1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down's syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages.

CONCLUSIONS

 Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down's syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down's syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting.

Validation of a method for noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies risk and considerations for its introduction in the Public Health System

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to validate noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidies by whole-genome massively parallel sequencing (MPS).

METHODS

MPS was performed on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) isolated from maternal plasma in two groups: a first set of 186 euploid samples and a second set of 195 samples enriched of aneuploid cases (n = 69); digital PCR for fetal fraction (FF) assessment was performed on 178/381 samples. Cases with <10 × 10⁶ reads (n = 54) were excluded for downstream data analysis. Follow-up data (invasive testing results or neonatal information) were available for all samples. Performances in terms of specificity/sensitivity and Z-score distributions were evaluated.

RESULTS

All positive samples for trisomy 21 (T21) (n = 43), trisomy 18 (T18) (n = 6) and trisomy 13 (T13) (n = 7) were correctly identified (sensitivity: 99.9%); 5 false positive results were reported: 3 for T21 (specificity = 98.9%) and 2 for T13 (specificity = 99.4%). Besides FF, total cfDNA concentration seems another important parameter for MPS, since it influences the number of reads.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall test accuracy allowed us introducing NIPT for T21, T18 and T13 as a clinical service for pregnant women after 10 + 4 weeks of gestation. Sex chromosome aneuploidy assessment needs further validation due to the limited number of aneuploid cases in this study.

Women's Experiences and Preferences for Service Delivery of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy in a Public Health Setting: A Mixed Methods Study

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy is currently only available in the UK through the private sector outside of the research arena. As part of an implementation study in the UK National Health Service we conducted a mixed methods study to assess women’s experience of being offered NIPT using validated measures of decisional conflict, decisional regret and anxiety. Clinical service preferences were also explored. Women with a Down syndrome screening risk >1:1000 were invited to take part in the study and offered NIPT, NIPT and invasive testing (for women with a risk above 1:150) or no further testing. A cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted at two time points; at the time of testing and one month following receipt of results (or equivalent for NIPT decliners). In total, 845 questionnaires and 81 interviews were analysed. The main motivation to accept NIPT was for reassurance (30.8%). Decisional conflict occurred in a minimal number of cases (3.8%), however, none of the participants experienced decisional regret. Around a third (29.9%) of women had elevated anxiety at the time of testing, including intermediate risk women who traditionally would not be offered further testing (54.4% high risk; 20.1% medium risk), a finding supported through the qualitative interviews where prolonged or additional anxiety was found to occur in some medium risk cases. Women were overwhelmingly positive about the opportunity to have a test that was procedurally safe, accurate, reduced the need for invasive testing and identified cases of Down syndrome that might otherwise have been missed. Reassurance was identified as the main motivator for accepting NIPT, particularly amongst medium risk women, with high risk women inclined to accept NIPT to inform decisions around invasive testing. The current turnaround time for test result was identified as a key limitation. All the women interviewed thought NIPT should be adopted as part of NHS clinical practice, with the majority favouring NIPT offered as a first-line test. Our study highlights the potential that NIPT has to positively impact women’s experience of prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Clinical implementation of routine screening for fetal trisomies in the UK NHS: cell-free DNA test contingent on results from first-trimester combined test

OBJECTIVES

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis of maternal blood for detection of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 is superior to other methods of screening but is expensive. One strategy to maximize performance at reduced cost is to offer cfDNA testing contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test that is used currently. The objectives of this study were to report the feasibility of implementing such screening, to examine the factors affecting patient decisions concerning their options for screening and decisions on the management of affected pregnancies and to report the prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomies and outcome of affected pregnancies following the introduction of contingent screening.

METHODS

We examined routine clinical implementation of contingent screening in 11,692 singleton pregnancies in two National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK. Women with a risk ≥ 1 in 100 (high-risk group) were offered options of invasive testing, cfDNA testing or no further testing, and those with a risk between 1 in 101 and 1 in 2500 (intermediate-risk group) were offered cfDNA testing or no further testing. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or by examination of the neonates.

RESULTS

In the study population of 11,692 pregnancies, there were 47 cases of trisomy 21 and 28 of trisomies 18 or 13. Screening with the combined test followed by invasive testing for all patients in the high-risk group potentially could have detected 87% of trisomy 21 and 93% of trisomies 18 or 13, at a false-positive rate of 3.4%; the respective values for cfDNA testing in the high- and intermediate-risk groups were 98%, 82% and 0.25%. However, in the high-risk group, 38% of women chose invasive testing and 60% chose cfDNA testing; in the intermediate-risk group 92% opted for cfDNA testing. A prenatal diagnosis was made in 43 (91.5%) pregnancies with trisomy 21 and all pregnancies with trisomies 18 or 13. In many affected pregnancies the parents chose to avoid testing or termination and 32% of pregnancies with trisomy 21 resulted in live births.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for fetal trisomies by cfDNA analysis of maternal blood, contingent on the results of the combined test, can be implemented easily in routine clinical practice. In the high-risk group from the combined test, most but not all women chose cfDNA testing rather than invasive testing. Performance of screening for trisomy 21 was superior by the cfDNA test than by the combined test. However, prenatal detection of trisomies and pregnancy outcome depend not only on performance of screening tests but also on parental choice.

Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had a profound influence in the field of prenatal diagnosis since the 1997 discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood. Research has progressed rapidly, with clinical data supporting laboratory studies showing that NIPT is highly sensitive and specific for fetal aneuploidy, resulting in marked uptake in the high-risk patient population. The superior accuracy of NIPT compared with conventional screening methods has led to significant decreases in the number of invasive diagnostic procedures, in addition to a concomitant decrease in the number of procedure-related fetal losses. Yet, NIPT has been described as a 'disruptive innovation' due to the considerable changes the technology has commanded on current prenatal screening and diagnostic practices. This review summarizes both institutional and global experience with NIPT uptake, its effect on reducing diagnostic invasive procedures, and the unique challenges that reduced procedural volume may have on physician and trainee proficiency, cytogenetic laboratories, and neonatal outcome.

Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by cell-free DNA analysis of maternal blood at 10-11 weeks' gestation and the combined test at 11-13 weeks

OBJECTIVE

To examine in a general population the performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 at 10-11 weeks' gestation and compare it to that of the combined test at 11-13 weeks.

METHODS

In 2905 singleton pregnancies, prospective screening for trisomies was performed by chromosome-selective sequencing of cfDNA in maternal blood at 10-11 weeks' gestation and by the combined test at 11-13 weeks' gestation.

RESULTS

Median maternal age of the study population was 36.9 (range, 20.4-51.9) years. Results from cfDNA analysis were provided for 2851 (98.1%) cases and these were available within 14 days from sampling in 2848 (98.0%) cases. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or clinical examination of the neonates. Of the 2785 pregnancies with a cfDNA result and known trisomic status, cfDNA testing correctly identified all 32 cases with trisomy 21, nine of 10 with trisomy 18 and two of five with trisomy 13, with false-positive rates of 0.04%, 0.19% and 0.07%, respectively. In cases with discordant results between cfDNA testing and fetal karyotype, the median fetal fraction was lower than in those with concordant results (6% vs 11%). Using the combined test, the estimated risk for trisomy 21 was ≥ 1/100 in all trisomic cases and in 4.4% of the non-trisomic pregnancies.

CONCLUSION

The performance of first-trimester cfDNA testing for trisomies 21 and 18 in the general population is similar to that in high-risk pregnancies. Most false-positive and false-negative results from cfDNA testing could be avoided if the a priori risk from the combined test is taken into account in the interpretation of individual risk.