Search

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]

Background There are limited data regarding noninvasive prenatal testing ( NIPT) in low-risk populations, and the ideal aneuploidy screening model for a pregnant population has yet to be established. Aims To assess the implementation of NIPT into clinical practice utilising both first- and second-line screening models. Materials and Methods Three private practices specialising in obstetric ultrasound and prenatal diagnosis in Australia offered NIPT as a first-line test, ideally followed by combined first-trimester screening ( cFTS), or as a second-line test following cFTS, particularly in those with a calculated risk between 1:50 and 1:1000. Results NIPT screening was performed in 5267 women and as a first-line screening method in 3359 (63.8%). Trisomies 21 and 13 detection was 100% and 88% for trisomy 18. Of cases with known karyotypes, the positive predictive value ( PPV) of the test was highest for trisomy 21 (97.7%) and lowest for monosomy X (25%). Ultrasound detection of fetal structural abnormality resulted in the detection of five additional chromosome abnormalities, two of which had high-risk cFTS results. For all chromosomal abnormalities, NIPT alone detected 93.4%, a contingent model detected 81.8% ( P = 0.097), and cFTS alone detected 65.9% ( P < 0.005). Conclusions NIPT achieved 100% T21 detection and had a higher DR of all aneuploidy when used as a first-line test. Given the false-positive rate for all aneuploidies, NIPT is an advanced screening test, rather than a diagnostic test. The benefit of additional cFTS was the detection of fetal structural abnormalities and some unusual chromosomal abnormalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To provide data on how screen-positive and detection rates of first trimester prenatal screening for fetal Down syndrome vary with changes in the risk cut-off and maternal age to inform contingency criteria for publicly funded noninvasive prenatal testing. Materials and Methods First trimester screening and diagnostic data were collected for all women attending for first trimester fetal aneuploidy screening in Western Australia between 2005 and 2009. Prenatal screening and diagnostic data were linked to pregnancy outcomes, including data from the Midwives' Notification System and the Western Australian Registry of Developmental Anomalies. The prevalence of Down syndrome and performance of screening by risk cut-off and/or for women >35 years were analysed. Results The current screening risk cut-off of 1:300 has screen-positive and detection rates of 3.5% and 82%. The screen-positive rate increases by 0.7-0.8% for each 100 point change in risk, up to 19.2% at 1:2500 (96% detection rate). Including all women >35 years as screen positive would increase the screen-positive rate and detection rates to 30.2% and 97.2%. Conclusion Variation in screening risk cut-off and the use of maternal age to assess eligibility for noninvasive testing could significantly impact the demand for, and cost of, the test. A contingent first trimester screening approach for risk assessment is superior to the use of a combination of screening and maternal age alone. These data will inform decisions regarding the criteria used to determine eligibility for publicly funded noninvasive prenatal testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To describe the potential impact of using noninvasive prenatal testing ( NIPT) as a second-tier test, on the diagnosis and outcomes of pregnancies identified as high risk through first trimester screening ( FTS) in a cohort of real pregnancies. Materials and Methods Western Australian FTS and diagnostic data (2007-2009) were linked to pregnancy outcomes. Karyotype results from invasive prenatal testing in high-risk women were analysed. The outcomes of abnormal results that would not be detected by NIPT, assuming a panel of trisomy 21/18/13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies, and the likelihood of diagnosis in a screening model using NIPT as a second-tier test are described. Results Abnormal karyotype results were reported in 224 of 1488 (15%) women with high-risk pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing. NIPT potentially would have identified 85%. The 33 abnormalities unidentifiable by NIPT were triploidies ( n = 7, 21%), balanced ( n = 8, 24%) and unbalanced rearrangements ( n = 10, 30%) and level III mosaicisms ( n = 8, 24%). For conditions not identifiable by NIPT, fetal sonographic appearance was likely to have led to invasive testing for 10 of 17 (59%) pathogenic abnormalities. If a policy was adopted recommending invasive testing for FTS risk >1:50 and/or ultrasound detected abnormality, the residual risk of an unidentified pathogenic chromosomal abnormality in those without a diagnosis would have been 0.33% (95% CI 0.01-0.65%). Conclusions A screening model with NIPT as a second-tier for high-risk pregnancies would be unlikely to have changed the outcome for the majority of pregnancies. Optimising the diagnosis of rare pathogenic abnormalities requires clear indicators for invasive testing over NIPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]