Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives

Advancements of non-invasive prenatal testing: the role of obstetricians

Since its debut in 2011, Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) has continually demonstrated its effectiveness in detecting an expanding number of diseases. NIPT offers a less invasive approach to prenatal chromosomal disease screening, providing prospective parents with vital information to better prepare for their potential pregnancy outcomes. NIPT was primarily designed for screening trisomy 13, 18, and 21. However, its scope has since broadened to encompass microdeletions and autosomal dominant monogenic diseases. Conversely, the normalization of NIPT can have unintended consequences. Some patients opt for NIPT without any medical indications, driven by a desire to remain cautious. This over-screening for chromosomal abnormalities can exacerbate pregnancy-related anxiety, as individuals might feel pressured into taking the test unnecessarily. While NIPT can be highly successful when conducted correctly, it is not infallible, and obstetricians play a crucial role in managing patient expectations. This includes providing genetic counseling to individuals with relevant genetic information regarding their personal and family histories. In the context of NIPT, a bioinformatics analysis is performed on a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sample extracted from the mother's placenta to determine the fetal fraction (FF). This FF measurement is vital for quality control and ensuring statistical confidence in the test results. Raising awareness among clinicians about the significance of FF enhances patient care and alleviate concerns about the possibility of failed NIPT. This paper aims to explore the ongoing debates and more specifically the significance and pitfalls of NIPT on a psychosocial and ethical scale, all while highlighting the importance of genetic counseling.

Psychological impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): TRIDENT-2 study

In the Netherlands, genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is offered to all pregnant women as part of the nationwide TRIDENT-2 study. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13, which are called "additional findings", are reported only on request of the pregnant woman. This study examined: (1) women's pre-test perceptions and reasons to opt for additional findings and (2) women's experiences with- and the psychological impact of being informed about an additional finding. A questionnaire, consisting of the anxiety measure State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), distress measure Impact of Event Scale (IES) and questions developed specifically for this study, was retrospectively administered to 402 women who received an additional finding. A total of 227 (56.5%) women completed the questionnaire. Most (60.2%) chose to know additional findings because they wanted as much information as possible about the health of their fetus. Almost all (92%) stated that receiving the additional finding was unexpected, a shock, and/or they were in disbelief, for 85% it caused a lot of worry. Post-test, high anxiety (STAI) levels were reported in 15.5% of women, and 7.5% reported severe distress (IES). Women who gave birth to an affected child (n = 10) experienced most psychological impact (STAI and IES). Eighty-six percent of women with a fetal aberration would opt for additional findings again, compared to 49.2% of women whose result was confined to the placenta. Pre-test counseling should focus on explaining the different results NIPT can generate. Post-test counseling should focus on guiding pregnant women through this uncertain and anxious time.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?

BACKGROUND

The introduction and wide application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has triggered further evolution of routines in the practice of prenatal diagnosis. 'Routinization' of prenatal diagnosis however has been associated with hampered informed choice and eugenic attitudes or outcomes. It is viewed, at least in some countries, with great suspicion in both bioethics and public discourse. However, it is a heterogeneous phenomenon that needs to be scrutinized in the wider context of social practices of reproductive genetics. In different countries with their different regulatory frameworks, different patterns of routines emerge that have different ethical implications. This paper discusses an ethics of routines informed by the perspectives of organizational sociology and psychology, where a routine is defined as a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent organizational actions that is carried out by multiple performers. We favour a process approach that debunks the view - which gives way to most of the concerns - that routines are always blindly performed. If this is so, routines are therefore not necessarily incompatible with responsible decision-making. Free and informed decision-making can, as we argue, be a key criterion for the ethical evaluation of testing routines. If free and informed decision-making by each pregnant woman is the objective, routines in prenatal testing may not be ethically problematic, but rather are defensible and helpful. We compare recent experiences of NIPT routines in the context of prenatal screening programmes in Germany, Israel and the Netherlands. Notable variation can be observed between these three countries (i) in the levels of routinization around NIPT, (ii) in the scope of routinization, and (iii) in public attitudes toward routinized prenatal testing.

CONCLUSION

An ethics of routines in the field of prenatal diagnostics should incorporate and work with the necessary distinctions between levels and forms of routines, in order to develop sound criteria for their evaluation.

Informed choice and routinization of the second-trimester anomaly scan: a national cohort study in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Since 2007 all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered the second-trimester anomaly scan (SAS) in a nationwide prenatal screening program. This study aims to assess the level of informed choice of women opting for the SAS and to evaluate the presence of routinization 16 years after its implementation. It further explores decisional conflict and women's decision making.

METHODS

This prospective national survey study consisted of an online questionnaire which was completed after prenatal counseling and before undergoing the SAS. Informed choice was measured by the adapted multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) and was defined in case women were classified as value-consistent, if their decision for the SAS was deliberated and made with sufficient knowledge.

RESULTS

A total of 894/1167 (76.6%) women completed the questionnaire. Overall, 54.8% made an informed choice, 89.6% had good knowledge, 59.8% had deliberated their choice and 92.7% held a positive attitude towards the SAS. Women with low educational attainment (p=0.004) or respondents of non-Western descent (p=0.038) were less likely to make an informed choice. Decisional conflict was low, with a significantly lower decisional conflict score in women that made an informed choice (p<0.001). Most respondents (97.9%) did not perceive pressure to undergo the SAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed a relatively low rate of informed choice for the SAS, due to absence of deliberation. Therefore, some routinization seem to be present in the Netherlands. However, most women had sufficient knowledge, did not perceive pressure and experienced low decisional conflict.

Change in client choice under multiple prenatal genetic testing options including noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) after genetic counseling in a Japanese maternity hospital

OBJECTIVE

This study examined how clients' selection and preference for noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy changed with genetic counseling (GC) performed by certified geneticists at a primary hospital specializing in obstetrics, where other multiple prenatal genetic tests options were available.

METHODS

A total of 334 couples who underwent GC between 2017 and 2019 were included in the study. The average age of the pregnant women who underwent GC was 35.1 years.

RESULTS

Among the 95 couples (28.4%) who wanted NIPT at the start of GC, 10 (10.5%) switched to other tests, and 4 (4.2%) chose not to undergo any test. Among the 106 (31.7%) couples who wanted the combination of ultrasonography and the serum marker test, 12 (11.3%) chose not to undergo the test. Among the 92 (27.5%) couples who were undecided before GC, 21 (22.8%) wanted NIPT, 31 (33.7%) selected combined tests, and 18 (19.6%) did not undergo any test.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the significance of GC before prenatal genetic testing under widespread use of NIPT. Ideally, obstetric facilities should provide GC, or at least, pre-counseling at their own facilities, and offer multiple prenatal genetic testing options or refer to other facilities for the same.

Financial contribution as reason to opt out of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVE

First trimester non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) provides pregnant women with a reliable, non-invasive method to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In the Netherlands, there is a nationwide prenatal screening program in which pregnant women and their partners are counseled about their options around 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first trimester and second trimester scan are fully reimbursed but the NIPT has an own financial contribution of €175 per participant, irrespective of type of insurance. The arguments for this own contribution are fear of uncritical use of NIPT or routinization. NIPT has a relatively stable uptake of 51%, against over 95% for second trimester anomaly scan. We aimed to explore the effect of this financial contribution on the decision to opt out of NIPT.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a survey among 350 pregnant women undergoing a second trimester anomaly scan in our center, Amsterdam UMC, between January 2021 and April 2022. All pregnant women who declined NIPT in the first trimester, were asked to participate and answered 11-13 questions about the decision-making process, the reasons to opt out and the financial contribution.

RESULTS

Information about NIPT was desired in 92% of women and 96% felt sufficiently informed. Most women took the decision not to perform NIPT with their partner and did not experience difficulties in taking this decision. The most important reason to decline NIPT was: "Every child is welcome" (69%). "The test was too expensive" was answered in 12% and was significantly correlated with lower maternal age. Additionally, one in five women (19%) said they would have done NIPT if it had been for free, which was significantly higher in younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

The own financial contribution plays a role in the decision-making to decline NIPT and partly explains the low uptake in the Netherlands. This suggests that there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. To overcome this inequality, this own contribution should be abandoned. We speculate that this will have a positive effect on the uptake, which will increase to at least 70% and potentially 94%.

Conditions for autonomous reproductive decision-making in prenatal screening: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women should be able to make autonomous and meaningful decisions about prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities. It remains largely unclear which circumstances facilitate or hinder such a decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate what conditions Dutch pregnant women and professional experts consider important for autonomous reproductive decision-making in prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities, and the extent to which, according to women, those conditions are met in practice.

METHODS

A mixed methods study was conducted in the Netherlands in 2016-2017. A conceptual model was used to interview professional experts (n = 16) and pregnant women (n = 19). Thematic analysis was performed to identify important conditions. Subsequently, a questionnaire assessed the perceived importance of those conditions and the extent to which these were met, in the experience of pregnant women (n = 200).

RESULTS

Professional experts stressed the importance of information provision, and emphasized a rational decision-making model. Pregnant women differed in what information they felt was needed, and this depended on the screening decision made. Questionnaire findings showed that women prioritized discussion and consensus with partners. Information about test accuracy and miscarriage risk of invasive follow-up testing was also considered important. Two key conditions were not adequately met, in the experience of women: (1) having information about miscarriage risk; (2) not being directed by health professionals in decision-making.

CONCLUSION

According to women, discussion and consensus with partners was considered a highly important condition for an autonomous and meaningful decision-making process. Access to information about safety of testing and ensuring that women are not being directed in their decision-making by health professionals seem to be areas for improvement in prenatal care practice.

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.

Health professionals and scientists' views on genome-wide NIPT in the French public health system: Critical analysis of the ethical issues raised by prenatal genomics

In France, since January 2020, laboratories have started to make available genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (GW-NIPT) beyond the three common trisomies (T21, T13 and T18) at the same cost as standard NIPT. With the possible margins for interpretation of the legal framework and in the absence of clear and updated guidelines, health professionals are left with questions about which type of screening offer may be clinically responsible, morally appropriate, and, at the same time, respectful of women’s values and ability to make autonomous choices. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis and understanding of the challenging dimensions of clinical practices in the context of evolving scientific knowledge and techniques in prenatal genomics. In this article, we develop a critical analysis of the arguments and concerns that emerge around the offer of expanded NIPT and are discussed by health professionals and scientists. To achieve this, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals and scientists from September 2021 to February 2022 and a comprehensive literature review (regulatory, scientific, medical, institutional sources). The results of our empirical research highlight the importance of addressing ethical issues related to the differing quality of counselling, the complexity of achieving informed consent, and the avoidance of harm to pregnant women in the feedback of findings beyond T21, T18 and T13. If there is an increase in the provision of GW-NIPT within the French public health system, it will be essential to promote medical practices that respect reproductive choices of women, support their autonomous decision and their understanding of the limitations and uncertainties associated with GW screening. Further research is required to provide an insight into women’s perceptions in order to refine our analysis from the patients’ perspective.

Informed choice of pregnant women regarding noninvasive prenatal testing in Korea: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

This study explored the degree to which pregnant women in Korea made informed choices regarding noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and investigated factors influencing whether they made informed choices.

METHODS

In total, 129 pregnant women in Korea participated in a web-based survey. Multidimensional measures of informed choice regarding NIPT and decisional conflict were used to measure participants' levels of knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, uptake, and decisional conflict related to NIPT. Additional questions were asked about participants' NIPT experiences and opinions.

RESULTS

All 129 pregnant women were recruited from an online community. Excluding those who expressed neutral attitudes toward NIPT, according to the definition of informed choice used in this study, only 91 made an informed choice (n=63, 69.2%) or an uninformed choice (n=28, 30.8%). Of the latter, 75.0% had insufficient knowledge, 39.3% made a value-inconsistent decision, and 14.3% did not deliberate sufficiently. No difference in decisional conflict was found between the two groups. A significant difference was found between the two groups in the reasons why NIPT was introduced or recommended (p=.021). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that pregnant women who were knowledgeable (odds ratio [OR], 4.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17- 10.47) and deliberated (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98) were significantly more likely to make an informed choice.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study help healthcare providers, including nurses in maternity units, understand pregnant women's experiences of NIPT. Counseling strategies are needed to improve pregnant women's knowledge of NIPT and create an environment that promotes deliberation regarding this decision.