Dataset Information

Non-invasive prenatal testing in mitigating concerns from invasive prenatal diagnostic testing: retrospective assessment of utility in an academic healthcare system in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a front-line screening for fatal chromosomal aneuploidy. In pregnant women with a risk of having fetal congenital disorders, NIPT is anticipated to reduce the needs of invasive prenatal diagnostic test (IPD). The objective of this study was to understand the acceptance of NIPT and the utility of NIPT to mitigate concerns about IPD in the US high-risk pregnancy management.

Design and setting

This was a retrospective observational research using healthcare records obtained from an academic healthcare system in the US. The study consisted of site-level longitudinal analysis and patient-level cross-sectional analysis.

Participant

A total of 5660 new high-risk pregnancies with age ≥35 years were identified for the longitudinal trend analysis. Cross-sectional utility assessment included 2057 pregnant women.

Exposure and outcome measures

Longitudinal trends of NIPT order, IPD procedure and the number of patients diagnosed with high-risk pregnancy were descriptively summarised. In the cross-sectional assessment, we tested the association between the use of NIPT and IPD using multivariable regression.

Results

The rate of increase in the NIPT use exceeded the changes in the number of high-risk pregnancies with age ≥35 years, while the number of annual IPD procedures has fluctuated without specific trends. There was no significant association between the numbers of NIPT and IPD with the adjusted ORs between 0.90 and 1.14 (p>0.1). The order of NIPT was not selected as an independent variable predicting the use of IPD. Clinical characteristics indicating low socioeconomic status and limited healthcare coverage are associated with less use of NIPT and lower clinical utility.

Conclusion

Although prenatal care accepted NIPT over the last decade, the utility of NIPT in mitigating concerns on IPD is unclear and needs further investigation. Limited clinical utility should be addressed in the context of disparity in prenatal care.

SUBMITTER: Kim K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9204434 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as an alternative to invasive diagnostic prenatal testing in pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 251 singleton and multiple pregnancies at high risk for fetal chromosomal abnormality based on findings at sonographic examination, in which NIPT was performed as a first-tier genetic test. NIPT was performed by massively parallel sequencing of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma, allowing genome-wide detection of whole-chromosome, as well as partial, autosomal aneuploidy. Sex chromosomes were not analyzed, according to the current protocol in Dutch laboratories.ResultsNIPT was performed at a median gestational age of 20 weeks, indicated by the presence of multiple congenital anomalies (n = 13), isolated structural anomalies (n = 57), increased nuchal translucency ≥ 3.5 mm (n = 58), soft markers (n = 73), growth restriction (n = 40) and other anomalies (n = 10). NIPT results were normal in 224 (89.2%) pregnancies, inconclusive in one (0.4%) and abnormal in 26 (10.4%). Most genetic aberrations detected by NIPT were common whole-chromosome aneuploidies: trisomy 21 (n = 13), trisomy 18 (n = 6) and trisomy 13 (n = 3). Four further NIPT results were abnormal; one was suspected of being confined placental mosaicism and one was of maternal origin. In those with normal NIPT results, sonographic follow-up or examination of the newborn indicated the need for diagnostic genetic testing in 33/224 (14.7%) pregnancies. Clinically relevant genetic aberrations were revealed in 7/224 (3.1%) cases, two of which were whole-chromosome aneuploidies: trisomy 13 and monosomy X. As sex chromosomal aberrations are not included in NIPT analysis, the latter cannot be considered a false-negative result. Other discordant findings were subchromosomal aberrations (< 20 megabases, n = 2) and monogenic aberrations (n = 3).ConclusionsNIPT should not be recommended for genetic evaluation of the etiology of ultrasound anomalies, as both resolution and sensitivity, or negative predictive value, are inferior to those of conventional karyotyping and microarray analysis. Nonetheless, some pregnant women consider NIPT to be an acceptable alternative to invasive diagnostic testing. © 2016 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has good screening performance for common chromosomes, but it may have false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) results for various reasons. For abnormal NIPT results, the combination of fetal ultrasound phenotypes will provide more fetal information for prenatal diagnosis. The aim of this study was to combine NIPT and ultrasound phenotypes to analyze their complementary roles in prenatal screening of fetal chromosome abnormalities.MethodsFrom January 2018 to December 2021, 12,803 pregnant women with singleton who successfully underwent NIPT/expanded NIPT (NIPT-Plus) at Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, of which 111 cases were positive results and one case was FN result. We retrospectively collected the clinical features, ultrasonographic findings, prenatal diagnosis, and pregnancy outcomes of these 112 pregnant women and analyzed the ultrasonic manifestations of different chromosomal abnormalities in detail.ResultsThe positive predictive values (PPVs) of NIPT/NIPT-Plus for trisomy (T)21, T18, sex chromosome abnormality (SCA), microdeletion/microduplication syndrome (MMS), T13, and rare autosomal trisomy (RAT) were 100.0%, 85.7%, 57.1%, 44.4%, 40.0%, and 7.7%, respectively. The total termination rates of pregnancy for T21, T18, T13, SCA, pathogenic MMS, and RAT were 93.5%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 66.7%, 100.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. From the karyotypes of SCA live-born fetuses, 47,XYY and 47,XXX were more likely to be selected for continued pregnancy. The ultrasound phenotypes of T21 were diverse, including normal, soft marker, and structural malformation. Both T18 and T13 had structural malformations as the main phenotypes. Most ultrasound phenotypes of FP T21, T18, and T13 were normal but occasionally manifested as fetal growth restriction (FGR). The ultrasound phenotypes of SCA, MMS, and RAT were relatively mild and manifested as normal, soft marker, FGR, or polyhydramnios, and the ultrasound phenotypes were similar between FP and true positive (TP) cases.ConclusionsUltrasound phenotypes are helpful in identifying FP NIPT/NIPT-Plus results, especially for T18 and T13. Given its mild ultrasound phenotypes, NIPT-Plus has important clinical significance in reducing the missed diagnosis of SCA, MMS, and RAT, but its screening performance needs to be further improved.