The effect of a prior e-learning tool on genetic counseling outcomes in diverse ethnic couples with abnormal Down syndrome screening tests: A randomized controlled trial

Genetic counseling (GC) following abnormal Down syndrome (DS) screening tests aims to ensure learning of complex medical concepts and discussion of counselees' personal desires. Pre-GC use of electronic learning tools (e-learning tools) can facilitate GC sessions by allowing more time for dialogue rather than learning medical and genetic concepts, enabling greater focus on the counselee's decisional, psychological, and personal needs. Few studies have investigated such tools for DS screening tests and those who have focused on screening uptake rather than abnormal results and implications. This study evaluated prenatal GC outcomes following implementation of an e-learning tool utilizing an educational animated movie for couples of varied ethnic backgrounds in northern Israel, with abnormal DS screening tests. E-learning tool impact was assessed as knowledge level, informed choices, satisfaction with the intervention and GC process, the state of anxiety and duration of the GC meeting. The 321 study participants were randomized to three groups: animation movie, booklet, and control. All participants had been asked to complete pre- and post-counseling questionnaires. Outcome scores were compared between the research groups. Results showed increased knowledge level in general among participants in the animation group; among minority participants, the highest knowledge level was in the animation group. Anxiety levels and informed choices were not statistically different among the groups. However, watching the animation, Jewish ethnicity, good level of genetic literacy, and academic degree were significant predictors of informed choice, and those who watched the animation were three times more likely to make an informed choice than the control group. Our findings suggest that this e-learning tool is efficient and acceptable for the general population. Special attention is needed for minorities with lower genetic literacy and education.

Relationship between False Positive Screening Results of Down Syndrome and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes

Background

Maternal serum sample screening in the first and second trimesters has been commonly used to identify women who are at risk of fetal trisomy 21. In addition, these serum markers are associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Hence, the present study was conducted to determine the relationship between false positive screening results of Down syndrome and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Material and Methods

This prospective, two-group, cohort study was conducted on 608 pregnant women who had undergone fetal contingent screening. They were selected through convenience sampling in the twentieth week of pregnancy and were followed up until delivery. The raw Odd Ratios (OR), Relative Risk (RR), and adjusted OR of adverse pregnancy outcomes were calculated in the false positive and true negative groups.

Results

The adjusted OR of developing preeclampsia was 1.98 (95%CI: 1.14-3.42), and its RR was 2.13 (95%CI: 1.34-3.38) times higher in the false positive group. Moreover, the adjusted OR of Small for Gestational Age (SGA) was 2.80 (95%CI: 1.76-4.47), and its RR was 2.28 (95%CI: 1.54-3.36) times higher in the false positive group. The adjusted OR of Low Birth Weight (LBW) was 3.34 (95%CI: 1.97-5.64), and its RR was 2.65 (95%CI: 1.72-4.11) times higher in the false positive group. In addition, no significant difference was observed between false positive and true negative groups in terms of preterm birth.

Conclusions

Women with a false positive fetal screening test result are more likely to suffer from preeclampsia, SGA, and LBW and require planned prenatal care.

[Discordant Down syndrome risk calculation with low maternal serum markers: About five cases of digynic triploidies]

OBJECTIVE

We compare the risk of Down syndrome among five patients carrying a foetus with digynic triploidy and suggest a course of action for these particular serological profiles.

METHODS

The concentrations of the different markers used are transformed into multiples of the median by using each of the three software types present on the French market which then determine the risk of Down syndrome.

RESULTS

For comparable biochemical and ultrasound profiles, the risk of Down syndrome turns out to be vastly different depending on the type of software employed. The relevance of an immediate diagnostic procedure, of a cell free DNA test or of a basic ultrasound follow-up then arises, leading to a potentially variable care pathway for the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that for this type of biochemical profile, the laboratory's advisory service is fundamental, that a control ultrasound is essential and that an invasive procedure must be used almost invariably due to the extremely substantial risk factors.

Follow Your Nose: Repeat Nasal Bone Evaluation in First-Trimester Screening for Down Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Examine whether repeat nasal bone evaluation following an absent/uncertain nasal bone on first-trimester screening (FTS) improves Down syndrome (DS) screening specificity.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of FTS sonograms in one center from January 2015 to January 2018 was performed. Data was extracted for those with an absent/uncertain nasal bone. Repeat evaluations were offered.

RESULTS

Of 6780 FTS sonograms, 589 (8.7%) had an absent/uncertain nasal bone. Upon repeat exam, 268/376 (71.3%) had a present nasal bone. Compared with Black patients, patients of other ethnicities were more likely to have a present nasal bone on exam 2 (P < .00001). Of 268 patients with a present nasal bone on exam 2, 37 (13.8%) had an abnormal DS risk following exam 1; 34/37 (91.9%) normalized following nasal bone visualization, dropping the screen positive rate to 1.1%.

CONCLUSION

Repeat nasal bone examination is beneficial in refining DS risk assessment and improves the specificity of FTS.

The anxiety caused by abnormal results of Down syndrome screening tests

The objective of our survey was to evaluate the anxiety experienced by women receiving abnormal results of prenatal Down syndrome screening by an electronic anonymous survey. Anxiety level was evaluated by a six-item Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Of 559 respondents, high anxiety scores were reported in the majority (86.0%). Higher anxiety scores were noted in women informed of the abnormal result by the caregiver vs. written answer. 59.1% of the respondents preferred the risk reported as percentage, while only 4.4% gave precedence to the current form (e.g. 1 in 100). The participants noted several factors which could relieve their anxiety, including an explanatory booklet (72.4%) or a website (77.9%). In conclusion, women receiving abnormal results of Down syndrome screening experience significant anxiety. Efforts should be made to relieve this distress, including changing the historical ratio risk format to percentage, adding a non-directive verbal annotation, an explanatory website and improving health professionals' understanding of the exact statistical meaning of the risk.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Abnormal results of prenatal screening for Down syndrome might cause the women significant anxiety. Several simple methods are able to relieve this distress; however, they are frequently not implemented in the routine practice.What the results of this study add? We show that abnormal results of the screening tests are associated with high anxiety scores in the majority of women (86.0%). The majority of the respondents preferred the risk reported as percentage (vs. historical representation as a ratio). The participants noted several factors which could relieve their anxiety, including an explanatory booklet or a website.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Based on the results, we discuss the numerous ways able to available alleviate the distress.

Is it useful to evaluate the presence of aberrant right subclavian artery in prenatal diagnosis ultrasounds?

AIM

Analyze if the evaluation of aberrant right subclavian artery in the prenatal echography has improved the detection of chromosomal, genetic and/or morphological abnormalities in our population.

METHODS

Descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study of the cases of aberrant right subclavian artery diagnosed in our Prenatal Diagnosis Unit between January of 2011 and December of 2018.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-seven cases of aberrant right subclavian artery were diagnosed and among them, 179 were considered isolated cases and thus were confirmed after birth. The detection of aberrant right subclavian artery did not improve itself neither the diagnosis of trisomy 21 in the second trimester of pregnancy nor other chromosomal or genetic abnormalities, including the not isolated cases. There were two cases of trisomy 21 diagnosed in the second trimester that presented major sonographic disorders and an inadequate examination during the first trimester. When aberrant right subclavian artery was associated with soft markers of aneuploidy in the second trimester, any case was a trisomy 21. Aberrant right subclavian artery seems to be associated with some minor and major heart defects, especially ventriculoseptal defect and aneurismatic ductus, and in some cases, also with clubfeet.

CONCLUSION

When an adequate screening of aneuploidies and a thorough ultrasound have been performed during the first trimester, aberrant right subclavian artery hardly helps to perform other diagnosis in the second trimester.

Service provision of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome in public and private healthcare sectors: a qualitative study with obstetric providers

Background

Cell-free fetal DNA sequencing based non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down syndrome (DS) has become widely available. In Hong Kong, obstetric providers in the public sector refer women identified at high risk of having a child with Down syndrome to obstetric providers in the private sector for NIPT. Little is known about how the NIPT has been adopted in the public sector where DS screening is provided for free of charge. The study aimed to identify the factors influencing providers’ role enactment, such as consultation and referral, in the service provision of NIPT for DS in public and private healthcare sectors.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 obstetric providers offering NIPT in Hong Kong. Thematic narrative analysis was used to identify (i) the factors considered by participants when referring women for NIPT for Down syndrome in public and private healthcare sectors and (ii) their perceptions of the need to integrate NIPT into the current public antenatal service.

Results

Participants raised concerns about the lack of transparent referral guideline between public and private sectors for NIPT. Public obstetric providers reported little obligation to provide women with much information about risks and benefits of NIPT as it was not provided by public sectors. Some private providers assumed that women referred from the public sector had already received sufficient information about NIPT. The providers were also concerned about potential application of NIPT for further detection without regulation.

Conclusions

Although the providers had good knowledge of clinical advantages of NIPT over conventional screening, they were uncertain about how to introduce NIPT to women. Guidelines are necessary to enable better coordination of public and private sectors services to enable women to make informed choices about the uptake of NIPT.

Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy using cell-free DNA - New implications for maternal health

The rapid global uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome based on maternal plasma cell-free DNA has provided new data on the interrelationship between cell-free DNA and maternal health. Specific maternal conditions that can affect the performance of noninvasive prenatal testing include obesity, active autoimmune disease and low molecular weight heparin treatment. There is also a growing appreciation of the implications of discordant noninvasive prenatal testing results for maternal health, including unexpected diagnoses of maternal chromosomal conditions, or rarely, occult cancer. The interrelatedness of noninvasive prenatal testing and maternal health mean that the longstanding principles underpinning prenatal screening - voluntary testing, informed decision making, availability of specialist genetic counselling and well-defined clinical pathways - are more important than ever before.

Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers within the context of national policy and healthcare system characteristics: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Uptake rates for Down syndrome screening in the Netherlands are low compared to other European countries. To investigate the low uptake, we explored women's reasons for participation and possible influences of national healthcare system characteristics. Dutch prenatal care is characterised by an approach aimed at a low degree of medicalisation, with pregnant women initially considered to be at low risk. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome is offered to all women, with a 'right not to know' for women who do not want to be informed on this screening. At the time this study was performed, the test was not reimbursed for women aged 35 and younger.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to explore reasons for participation and possible influences of healthcare system characteristics. Data were collected via ten semi-structured focus groups with women declining or accepting the offer of Down syndrome screening (n = 46). All focus groups were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded and content analysed.

RESULTS

Women declining Down syndrome screening did not consider Down syndrome a condition severe enough to justify termination of pregnancy. Young women declining felt supported in their decision by perceived confirmation of their obstetric caregiver and reassured by system characteristics (costs and age restriction). Women accepting Down syndrome screening mainly wanted to be reassured or be prepared to care for a child with Down syndrome. By weighing up the pros and cons of testing, obstetric caregivers supported young women who accepted in the decision-making process. This was helpful, although some felt the need to defend their decision to accept the test offer due to their young age. For some young women accepting testing, costs were considered a disincentive to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

Presentation of prenatal screening affects how the offer is attended to, perceived and utilised. By offering screening with age restriction and additional costs, declining is considered the preferred choice, which might account for low Dutch uptake rates. Autonomous and informed decision-making in Down syndrome screening should be based on the personal interest in knowing the individual risk of having a child with Down syndrome and system characteristics should not influence participation.

[First trimester screening for Down syndrome at Prima facie. A 6-year survey]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of screening for trisomy 21 by the combined risk of first trimester (as defined by the decree of June 23, 2009) in the Prima facie structure.

METHODS

Single center study involving all patients that were seen for first trimester screening at Prima facie with singleton living pregnancy, not obtained by embryo donation, between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2014.

RESULTS

Eighteen thousand two hundred and fifty-one patients were included, of which underwent screening for trisomy 21 by the combined risk. One thousand and forty-six (6.1%) had a calculated risk higher than 1/250. Seventy-five were affected by trisomy 21, of whom 65 in the high risk group. The sensitivity and specificity of screening are 86.7% and 94.4%. The median nuchal translucency was 0.98 MoM.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for trisomy 21 by calculating the combined risk of first trimester enabled to detect 86.7% of trisomy 21 with a false positive rate of 5.6%.

Cell-free fetal DNA screening in the USA: a cost analysis of screening strategies

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether implementation of primary cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening would be cost-effective in the USA and to evaluate potential lower-cost alternatives.

METHODS

Three strategies to screen for trisomy 21 were evaluated using decision tree analysis: 1) a primary strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients, 2) a contingent strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered only to patients who were high risk on traditional first-trimester screening and 3) a hybrid strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients ≥ 35 years of age and only to patients < 35 years who were high risk after first-trimester screening. Four traditional screening protocols were evaluated, each assessing nuchal translucency (NT) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) along with either free or total beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), with or without nasal bone (NB) assessment.

RESULTS

Utilizing a primary cffDNA screening strategy, the cost per patient was 1017 US$. With a traditional screening protocol using free β-hCG, PAPP-A and NT assessment as part of a hybrid screening strategy, a contingent strategy with a 1/300 cut-off and a contingent strategy with a 1/1000 cut-off, the cost per patient was 474, 430 and 409 US$, respectively. Findings were similar using the other traditional screening protocols. Marginal cost per viable case detected for the primary screening strategy as compared to the other strategies was 3-16 times greater than the cost of care for a missed case.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary cffDNA screening is not currently a cost-effective strategy. The contingent strategy was the lowest-cost alternative, especially with a risk cut-off of 1/1000. The hybrid strategy, although less costly than primary cffDNA screening, was more costly than the contingent strategy.

Accuracy of nuchal translucency measurement depends on equipment used and its calibration

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of different ultrasound machine-probe combinations on nuchal translucency (NT) measurements and to assess how this impacts on the accuracy of the NT-derived component of first-trimester screening for trisomy 21.

METHODS

Sixteen different ultrasound machine-probe combinations were used for axial measurement of 2.0-, 3.0- and 4.0-mm spaced targets in an ultrasound phantom. Differences between the measured and known values were determined. The mean of the axial measurements was used to calculate adjusted risks for trisomy 21, given specific clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Differences observed using different machine-probe combinations for the 2.0-mm target ranged from 1.8-2.2 mm; for the 3.0-mm target, 2.7-3.2 mm; and for the 4-mm target, 3.7-4.3 mm, and exceeded those due to intraobserver variability. For a fetal crown-rump length of 50.0 mm and NT measurement of 2.0 mm, the maximum/minimum measurements in the fetus of a 40-year-old woman led to derived risks ranging from 1 in 32 (NT, 2.2 mm) to 1 in 189 (NT, 1.8 mm) and in the fetus of a 20-year-old with an NT of 3.0 mm these ranged from 1 in 102 (NT, 3.2 mm) to 1 in 160 (NT, 2.7 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

We have described the effect of machine-probe combinations on small but very precise ultrasound measurements. Such machine-probe combinations led to greater variability than those ascribed to intraobserver differences, and significantly affected the screening risk for the same fixed measurement. This finding has implications for Down syndrome screening algorithms and audit of ultrasound operators. Furthermore, most ultrasound machines are neither calibrated nor specified for measurements of tenths of a mm.

Down syndrome screening: suitability of a WHO 5 standardized total hCG assay

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the adoption of the new WHO 5th International Standard (IS 07/364) will affect the suitability of total βhCG as a marker for second trimester Down syndrome screening, compared to the current WHO 3rd IS (75/537).

DESIGN AND METHODS

Assays employing both standards were evaluated on the Beckman Coulter DxI platform. Matched βhCG results from 232 fresh second trimester maternal serum samples were compared. In addition, stored samples from 51 Down syndrome and 251 matched control sera were also tested with both assays and results converted to weight-adjusted multiples of the median (MoMs). These results were combined with maternal age and the existing alpha-fetoprotein, unconjugated estriol and inhibin-A MoM levels to compute patient-specific Down syndrome risk.

RESULTS

Correlation between the two sets of results on fresh samples was high (r=0.993), but showed a proportional increase of 33% (95% CI 31% to 35%) in results using the new versus old assay across the range of measurements. βhCG results in the case/control dataset were also highly correlated (0.994) and showed a similar proportional increase (34%). After computing assay-specific MoMs, the resulting 'triple' and 'quadruple' Down syndrome risks were highly correlated, and resulted in no difference in either of the two detection rates (78% and 88%, respectively) or false positive rates (6.4%, 6.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratories using the DxI platform with the new total βhCG 5th IS assay will need to compute new reference (medians), but can expect no impact on the clinical validity of the associated Down syndrome screening programs.

Non-invasive prenatal testing using massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA: from molecular karyotyping to fetal whole-genome sequencing

The discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma in 1997 has stimulated a rapid development of non-invasive prenatal testing. The recent advent of massively parallel sequencing has allowed the analysis of circulating cell-free fetal DNA to be performed with unprecedented sensitivity and precision. Fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 are now robustly detectable in maternal plasma and such analyses have been available clinically since 2011. Fetal genome-wide molecular karyotyping and whole-genome sequencing have now been demonstrated in a number of proof-of-concept studies. Genome-wide and targeted sequencing of maternal plasma has been shown to allow the non-invasive prenatal testing of β-thalassaemia and can potentially be generalized to other monogenic diseases. It is thus expected that plasma DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing will play an increasingly important role in future obstetric care. It is thus timely and important that the ethical, social and legal issues of non-invasive prenatal testing be discussed actively by all parties involved in prenatal care.

Efficacy of the genetic sonogram in a stepwise sequential protocol for down syndrome screening

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the genetic sonogram in Down syndrome screening for women who have received the stepwise sequential test.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included women with singleton pregnancies who underwent stepwise sequential (first-trimester combined and second-trimester serum) screening and then had a genetic sonogram between March 2005 and January 2010. Stepwise sequential Down syndrome risks were multiplied by either a positive or negative likelihood ratio based on the second-trimester sonographic findings to determine the final Down syndrome risk. A final Down syndrome risk of 1:270 or higher was considered screen positive.

RESULTS

A total of 6286 women fulfilled our criteria, including 17 with Down syndrome-affected fetuses. After stepwise sequential testing, the Down syndrome detection rate was 88.2% (15 of 17), and after the genetic sonogram, there was a non-significant reduction in detection to 82.4% (14 of 17; P > .05). For the 6269 unaffected pregnancies, the genetic sonogram converted 58 screen-negative results (1%) to positive and 183 screen-positive results (3.1%) to negative. The net effect was a change in the false-positive rate from 6.2% (390 of 6269) after stepwise sequential screening to 4.2% (266 of 6269) after the genetic sonogram.

CONCLUSIONS

The genetic sonogram should be applied cautiously for women who have received prior prenatal screening tests. Women with screen-positive results need to be counseled that a negative sonographic result can be falsely reassuring. Conversely, for women with screen-negative results who have a risk close to the cutoff, a sonographic examination could assist in the decision of whether to accept or reject amniocentesis.