Search

Background: Combined first‐trimester screening (cFTS) for fetal anomalies involves maternal serum screening for biochemical markers and measurement of the nuchal translucency (NT) by ultrasound. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) analyses cell‐free DNA present in a maternal blood sample for presence of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. Aims: To compare NIPS with cFTS as frontline screening in a public hospital in Australia. Materials and methods: Women were offered NIPS in addition to the usual cFTS routinely offered to all women at a public hospital in NSW, Australia. The cFTS sample was collected at ten weeks' gestation and the NIPS sample at 12 weeks' gestation at the ultrasound appointment. Results: In a low‐risk population of 997 women, frontline NIPS had a screen‐positive rate of 0.5% (5/997) vs 4.2% (42/997) with cFTS. cFTS correctly identified one trisomy 21 case and one trisomy 18 case; however, there were two trisomy 18 false negatives. Of five positive NIPS calls, four were correctly identified as trisomy 21 (one) and trisomy 18 (three); there were no NIPS false negatives. Overall, the false‐positive rate with NIPS was 0.1% vs 4.0% by cFTS. Conclusions: The lower screen‐positive rate with NIPS for common trisomies was a result of the significantly lower false‐positive rate with NIPS. Consequently, NIPS as first‐line screening, even if funded by the hospital, may provide cost savings. We believe NIPS should be used from ten weeks' gestation in conjunction with morphology ultrasound for routine first‐trimester prenatal management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cell‐free DNA screening has quickly become established in Australia as an accurate – albeit costly – prenatal screening test for trisomy 21, 18 and 13. It is also commonly used for the detection of sex chromosome abnormalities. The increasing number of prenatal screening pathways available to women has increased the complexity of pretest counselling. Concurrent advances in diagnostic testing with the widespread use of chromosomal microarrays create further challenges for the continuing education of clinicians and health consumers. This article aims to answer common clinical questions in this rapidly evolving field and complements the recently updated Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Statement on Prenatal Screening for Fetal Chromosome and Genetic Conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the early 1980s, prenatal screening using ultrasound and biochemical markers has been used to refine the risk of Down syndrome and other fetal anomalies prior to considering fetal karyotyping. The performance of prenatal screening is subject to ongoing monitoring in Western Australia. The collection of these data can also assist in the identification of any potential inequities of access to prenatal screening within the state-wide programme. Prenatal screening data (2005-2006) were collected from accredited ultrasound and pathology laboratories in Western Australia. Screening data were linked to diagnostic and pregnancy outcome data. Performance characteristics of screening and uptake by socio-demographic characteristics were analysed. Complete screening data were collected for 35,142 of the estimated 38,081 women screened during 2005 and 2006. There were 59,999 births related to this screening period. The lowest uptake of screening was among women who were Aboriginal (14.9%), living in remote areas (38.0%), under the age of 25 (40.2%), in the lowest quintile of the SEIFA index (41.6%) and with three or more children (48.4%). Logistic regression analysis showed all socio-demographic factors to be strongly associated with screening behaviour, with adjustment for ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, parity and area of residence. Our results have important implications for the delivery of prenatal screening services in Western Australia. While the screening programme meets international and national performance standards, the disparities in screening uptake suggest inequity in access to services, particularly for Aboriginal, remote and socio-economically disadvantaged women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]