Search

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), based on analysis of cell-free foetal DNA, is rapidly becoming a preferred method to screen for chromosomal aneuploidy with the technology now available in over 90 countries. This review provides an up-to-date discussion of the key clinical, social and ethical implications associated with this revolutionary technology. Stakeholders are positive about a test that is highly accurate, safe, can be perfomed early in pregnancy, identifies affected pregnancies that might otherwise have been missed and reduces the need for invasive testing. Nevertheless, professional societies currently recommend it as an advanced screening test due to the low false positive rate (FPR). Despite the practical and psychological benefits, a number of concerns have been raised which warrant attention. These include the potential for routinisation of testing and subsequent impact on informed decision-making, an "easy" blood test inadvertently contributing to women feeling pressured to take the test, fears NIPT will lead to less tolerance and support for those living with Down syndrome and the heightened expectation of having "perfect babies". These issues can be addressed to some extent through clinician education, patient information and establishing national and international consensus in the development of comprehensive and regularly updated guidelines. As the number of conditions we are able to test for non-invasively expands it will be increasingly important to ensure pre-test counselling can be delivered effectively supported by knowledgeable healthcare professionals.

Objective: To explore women's attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and determine factors influencing their decisions around uptake of NIPT., Method: We conducted qualitative interviews to assess knowledge, attitude and deliberation amongst women offered NIPT in a public health service. In total, 45 women took part in telephone interviews (79% participation rate)., Results: Most women could recount the key aspects of NIPT discussed during pre-test counselling but had variable knowledge about Down syndrome. Analysis of women's attitudes towards undergoing NIPT revealed three dominant factors they considered when reflecting on the test: (1) how NIPT compared with alternative testing options, (2) reflections on coping and (3) moral or religious values. Exploring the deliberative process revealed the different paths women take when making decisions. For some, it was an extension of the decision to have Down syndrome screening; some considered it early on following the booking-in appointment; others made step-wise decisions about NIPT when it became relevant to them., Conclusion: Our findings support the importance of personalised counselling, whereby women and their partners have the opportunity to reflect on the implications of the test results in the context of their own lives and values. Our data highlight the influence of personal circumstances on decision-making. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (© 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy is currently only available in the UK through the private sector outside of the research arena. As part of an implementation study in the UK National Health Service we conducted a mixed methods study to assess women's experience of being offered NIPT using validated measures of decisional conflict, decisional regret and anxiety. Clinical service preferences were also explored. Women with a Down syndrome screening risk >1:1000 were invited to take part in the study and offered NIPT, NIPT and invasive testing (for women with a risk above 1:150) or no further testing. A cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted at two time points; at the time of testing and one month following receipt of results (or equivalent for NIPT decliners). In total, 845 questionnaires and 81 interviews were analysed. The main motivation to accept NIPT was for reassurance (30.8%). Decisional conflict occurred in a minimal number of cases (3.8%), however, none of the participants experienced decisional regret. Around a third (29.9%) of women had elevated anxiety at the time of testing, including intermediate risk women who traditionally would not be offered further testing (54.4% high risk; 20.1% medium risk), a finding supported through the qualitative interviews where prolonged or additional anxiety was found to occur in some medium risk cases. Women were overwhelmingly positive about the opportunity to have a test that was procedurally safe, accurate, reduced the need for invasive testing and identified cases of Down syndrome that might otherwise have been missed. Reassurance was identified as the main motivator for accepting NIPT, particularly amongst medium risk women, with high risk women inclined to accept NIPT to inform decisions around invasive testing. The current turnaround time for test result was identified as a key limitation. All the women interviewed thought NIPT should be adopted as part of NHS clinical practice, with the majority favouring NIPT offered as a first-line test. Our study highlights the potential that NIPT has to positively impact women's experience of prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Background: The development of non-invasive prenatal testing has increased accessibility of fetal testing. Companies are now advertising prenatal testing for aneuploidy via the Internet., Objectives: The aim of this systematic review of websites advertising non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy was to explore the nature of the information being provided to potential users., Methods: We systematically searched two Internet search engines for relevant websites using the following terms: 'prenatal test', 'antenatal test', 'non-invasive test', 'noninvasive test', 'cell-free fetal DNA', 'cffDNA', 'Down syndrome test' or 'trisomy test'. We examined the first 200 websites identified through each search. Relevant web-based text was examined, and key topics were identified, tabulated and counted. To analyse the text further, we used thematic analysis., Main Results: Forty websites were identified. Whilst a number of sites provided balanced, accurate information, in the majority supporting evidence was not provided to underpin the information and there was inadequate information on the need for an invasive test to definitely diagnose aneuploidy., Conclusions: The information provided on many websites does not comply with professional recommendations. Guidelines are needed to ensure that companies offering prenatal testing via the Internet provide accurate and comprehensible information., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

Unlabelled: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of fetal aneuploidy using cell-free fetal DNA is becoming part of routine clinical practice. RAPIDR (Reliable Accurate Prenatal non-Invasive Diagnosis R package) is an easy-to-use open-source R package that implements several published NIPT analysis methods. The input to RAPIDR is a set of sequence alignment files in the BAM format, and the outputs are calls for aneuploidy, including trisomies 13, 18, 21 and monosomy X as well as fetal sex. RAPIDR has been extensively tested with a large sample set as part of the RAPID project in the UK. The package contains quality control steps to make it robust for use in the clinical setting., Availability and Implementation: RAPIDR is implemented in R and can be freely downloaded via CRAN from here: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RAPIDR/index.html., Contact: kitty.lo@ucl.ac.uk, Supplementary Information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: To investigate an approach for the analysis of samples obtained in screening for trisomy 21 that retains the advantages of quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (qf-PCR) over full karyotyping and maximises the detection of clinically significant abnormalities., Design: Observational study., Setting: Tertiary referral centre., Subjects: 17,446 pregnancies, from which chorionic villous samples had been taken after assessment of risk for trisomy 21 by measurement of fetal nuchal translucency (NT) thickness at 11 to 13(+6) weeks of gestation., Interventions: Analysis of chorionic villous samples by full karyotyping and by qf-PCR for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y., Main Outcome Measure: Detection of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities., Results: The fetal karyotype was normal in 15,548 (89.1%) cases and abnormal in 1898 (10.9%) cases, including 1722 with a likely clinically significant adverse outcome. Karyotyping all cases would lead to the diagnosis of all clinically significant abnormalities, and a policy of relying entirely on qf-PCR would lead to the diagnosis of 97.9% of abnormalities. An alternative strategy whereby qf-PCR is the main method of analysis and full karyotyping is reserved for those cases with a minimum fetal NT thickness of 4 mm would require full karyotyping in 10.1% of the cases, would identify 99.0% of the significant abnormalities, and would cost 60% less than full karyotyping for all., Conclusions: In the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities after first trimester screening for trisomy 21, a policy of qf-PCR for all samples and karyotyping only if the fetal NT thickness is increased would reduce the economic costs, provide rapid delivery of results, and identify 99% of the clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities.

Background: The availability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidies is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Training health professionals to offer NIPT in a way that supports informed choice is essential for implementation. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a training package for health professionals to support the introduction of NIPT into clinical practice.Methods: Training on NIPT was offered to health professionals, primarily midwives, involved in Down syndrome screening and testing in eight hospitals located in England and Scotland as part of a research study evaluating the implementation of NIPT in the UK National Health Service. Training was evaluated using a mixed methods approach that included quantitative questionnaires at three time points and post-training qualitative interviews. The questionnaires measured confidence, self-perceived knowledge and actual knowledge about NIPT for Down syndrome. Interviews explored opinions about the training and experiences of offering NIPT.Results: The training provided to the health professionals was found to positively impact on their confidence in discussing NIPT with women in their clinic, and both their perceived and actual knowledge and understanding of NIPT was improved. Knowledge remained weak in four areas; cell-free fetal DNA levels increase with gestation; turnaround time for NIPT results; cell-free fetal DNA is placental in origin; and NIPT false positive rate.Conclusions: Training materials, including a lesson plan, PowerPoint presentation and written factsheet on NIPT, have been developed and evaluated for use in educating midwives and supporting the introduction of NIPT. Implementation of training should include a greater focus on the areas where knowledge remained low. Some groups of midwives will need additional training or support to optimise their confidence in discussing NIPT with women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidies is now available through commercial companies in many countries, including through private practice in the United Kingdom (UK). Thorough evaluation of service delivery requirements are needed to facilitate NIPT being offered more widely within state funded healthcare systems such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Successful implementation will require the development of laboratory standards, consideration of stakeholder views, an analysis of costs and development of patient and health professional educational materials. Methods/Design: NIPT will be offered in an NHS setting as a contingent screening test. Pregnant woman will be recruited through six maternity units in England and Scotland. Women eligible for Down's syndrome screening (DSS) will be informed about the study at the time of booking. Women that choose routine DSS will be offered NIPT if they have a screening risk =1:1000. NIPT results for trisomy 21, 18, 13 will be reported within 7-10 working days. Data on DSS, NIPT and invasive testing uptake, pregnancy outcomes and test efficacy will be collected. Additional data will be gathered though questionnaires to a) determine acceptability to patients and health professionals, b) evaluate patient and health professional education, c) assess informed choice in women accepting or declining testing and d) gauge family expenses. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted with a sub-set of participating women and health professionals. Discussion: The results of this study will make a significant contribution to policy decisions around the implementation of NIPT for aneuploidies within the UK NHS. The laboratory standards for testing and reporting, education materials and counselling strategies developed as part of the study are likely to underpin the introduction of NIPT into NHS practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of massively parallel sequencing of maternal cfDNA for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of aneuploidy is widely available. Recently, the scope of testing has increased to include selected subchromosomal abnormalities, but the number of samples reported has been small. We developed a calling pipeline based on a segmentation algorithm for the detection of these rearrangements in maternal plasma. The same read depth used in our standard pipeline for aneuploidy NIPT detected 15/18 (83%) samples with pathogenic rearrangements > 6 Mb but only 2/10 samples with rearrangements < 6 Mb, unless they were maternally inherited. There were two false-positive calls in 534 samples with no known subchromosomal abnormalities (specificity 99.6%). Using higher read depths, we detected 29/31 fetal subchromosomal abnormalities, including the three samples with maternally inherited microduplications. We conclude that test sensitivity is a function of the fetal fraction, read depth, and size of the fetal CNV and that at least one of the two false negatives is due to a low fetal fraction. The lack of an independent method for determining fetal fraction, especially for female fetuses, leads to uncertainty in test sensitivity, which currently has implications for this technique's future as a clinical diagnostic test. Furthermore, to be effective, NIPT must be able to detect chromosomal rearrangements across the whole genome for a very low false-positive rate. Because standard NIPT can only detect the majority of larger (>6 Mb) chromosomal rearrangements and requires knowledge of fetal fraction, we consider that it is not yet ready for routine clinical implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]