» Articles » PMID: 26817523

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Routine Clinical Practice--an Audit of NIPT and Combined First-trimester Screening in an Unselected Australian Population

Overview
Date 2016 Jan 29
PMID 26817523
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.

Perrot A, Clarke A, Vassy C, Horn R J Genet Couns. 2023; 33(6):1204-1214.

PMID: 37975159 PMC: 11632564. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1839.


Prenatal screening tests and prevalence of fetal aneuploidies in a tertiary hospital in Thailand.

Wongkrajang P, Jittikoon J, Sangroongruangsri S, Talungchit P, Ruangvutilert P, Panchalee T PLoS One. 2023; 18(4):e0284829.

PMID: 37079630 PMC: 10118185. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284829.


Cell-free DNA screening positive for monosomy X: clinical evaluation and management of suspected maternal or fetal Turner syndrome.

Dowlut-McElroy T, Davis S, Howell S, Gutmark-Little I, Bamba V, Prakash S Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 227(6):862-870.

PMID: 35841934 PMC: 9729468. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.07.004.


WisecondorFF: Improved Fetal Aneuploidy Detection from Shallow WGS through Fragment Length Analysis.

Mokveld T, Al-Ars Z, Sistermans E, Reinders M Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1).

PMID: 35054227 PMC: 8774687. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010059.


Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making.

Bowman-Smart H, Gyngell C, Mand C, Amor D, Delatycki M, Savulescu J Am J Bioeth. 2021; 23(3):3-20.

PMID: 34846986 PMC: 7614328. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1996659.