Search

Cell-free circulating DNA is an evolving technology with important clinical applications in both obstetric care and oncology. In the challenging patient with pregnancy and co-existing malignancy, the utility of cell-free DNA both for aneuploidy screening and cancer identification is an area of active research. Understanding the physiology associated with circulating cell-free DNA and subsequent laboratory evaluation is critical for clinicians caring for the obstetric patient with cell-free fetal DNA screening results suggestive of malignancy. Ongoing research is necessary to determine best practices for the evaluation and management of these patients with promising applications in the advancement of precision medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cell-free DNA is an advancing technology with increasing applications in screening, diagnosis, and treatment for several disease processes. The shared physiologic, genetic, and epigenetic characteristics of placental physiology and tumor development have become apparent to both clinicians and researchers. Maternal malignancy has been reported as a cause of false-positive prenatal cell-free DNA screening results. The detection of multiple aneuploidies or a single autosomal monosomy increases the chance for an underlying maternal malignancy when the result is discordant with fetal diagnostic testing. There is currently no consensus guideline on counseling and evaluation of patients with concern for malignancy from cell-free DNA testing. Furthermore, laboratories differ significantly in reporting policies, terminology, and in reporting strategies and methods used for unexpected or incidental findings. The ordering practitioner is therefore tasked to understand the policies of their laboratory of choice to provide adequate pretest and posttest genetic counseling. In pretest counseling, the potential for incidental or unexpected findings or nonreportable results should be explained. With an abnormal, unanticipated, or nonreportable result, posttest counseling should include a description of possible fetal or maternal diagnoses, including malignancy. Health care professionals should explain options for further evaluation and management, including a recommendation for fetal diagnostic testing. The medical workup recommended by various authors to evaluate cancer risk is based on consensus, experience, and expert opinion. These strategies should incorporate the patient's desire for information, cost, and family and personal medical history. Ongoing research and multi-disciplinary collaboration in this area is critical to identify best practices in management of complex results from this increasingly common screening test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of cell‐free DNA screening, or non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), for chromosome abnormalities has greatly impacted prenatal care since its introduction in late 2011. We aimed to evaluate the association between the introduction of cell‐free DNA screening and indication and referral patterns for genetic counseling at a large US academic medical center by comparing the percentage of each counseling indication between the time period prior to the introduction of cell‐free DNA screening (2006–2011) and following its introduction (2012–2016) using multivariable Poisson regression models. Genetic counseling indications for positive carrier screens, average risk patients, abnormal ultrasound findings, and family history indications were significantly higher following the introduction of NIPT while advanced maternal age and abnormal maternal serum screening indications dropped significantly. We also showed that the uptake of amniocentesis dropped significantly after the introduction of cell‐free DNA screening, while chorionic villus sampling uptake increased. These results provide evidence that the introduction of new genetic screening technologies is associated with a shift in genetic counseling referral indications and an increased uptake in genetic screening. Additional research is needed to explore the impact of expanded testing options on the need for genetic counseling services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]