Cell-free DNA and contingent screening: Our first year

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.

Systematic evidence-based review: The application of noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA in general-risk pregnancies

PURPOSE

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in high-risk populations. This systematic evidence review evaluates NIPS performance in a general-risk population.

METHODS

Medline (PubMed) and Embase were used to identify studies examining detection of Down syndrome (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, copy number variants, and maternal conditions, as well as studies assessing the psychological impact of NIPS and the rate of subsequent diagnostic testing. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates of NIPS performance (P < .05). Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Diagnostic odds ratios were significant (P < .0001) for T21, T18, and T13 for singleton and twin pregnancies. NIPS was accurate (≥99.78%) in detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies. Performance for rare autosomal trisomies and copy number variants was variable. Use of NIPS reduced diagnostic tests by 31% to 79%. Conclusions regarding psychosocial outcomes could not be drawn owing to lack of data. Identification of maternal conditions was rare.

CONCLUSION

NIPS is a highly accurate screening method for T21, T18, and T13 in both singleton and twin pregnancies.