Clinical implementation of routine screening for fetal trisomies in the UK NHS: cell-free DNA test contingent on results from first-trimester combined test

被引:93
|
作者
Gil, M. M. [1 ]
Revello, R. [1 ]
Poon, L. C. [1 ]
Akolekar, R. [1 ,2 ]
Nicolaides, K. H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Kings Coll Hosp London, Harris Birthright Res Ctr Fetal Med, London SE5 9RS, England
[2] Medway Maritime Hosp, Dept Fetal Med, Gillingham, Kent, England
关键词
cell-free DNA; fetal trisomy; first-trimester combined test; MATERNAL BLOOD; DOWN-SYNDROME; RISK; ANEUPLOIDIES; WOMEN; COST; DIAGNOSIS; TRIMESTER;
D O I
10.1002/uog.15783
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objectives Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis of maternal blood for detection of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 is superior to other methods of screening but is expensive. One strategy to maximize performance at reduced cost is to offer cfDNA testing contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test that is used currently. The objectives of this study were to report the feasibility of implementing such screening, to examine the factors affecting patient decisions concerning their options for screening and decisions on the management of affected pregnancies and to report the prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomies and outcome of affected pregnancies following the introduction of contingent screening. Methods We examined routine clinical implementation of contingent screening in 11 692 singleton pregnancies in two National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK. Women with a risk >= 1 in 100 (high-risk group) were offered options of invasive testing, cfDNA testing or no further testing, and those with a risk between 1 in 101 and 1 in 2500 (intermediate-risk group) were offered cfDNA testing or no further testing. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or by examination of the neonates. Results In the study population of 11 692 pregnancies, there were 47 cases of trisomy 21 and 28 of trisomies 18 or 13. Screening with the combined test followed by invasive testing for all patients in the high-risk group potentially could have detected 87% of trisomy 21 and 93% of trisomies 18 or 13, at a false-positive rate of 3.4%; the respective values for cfDNA testing in the high-and intermediate-risk groups were 98%, 82% and 0.25%. However, in the high-risk group, 38% of women chose invasive testing and 60% chose cfDNA testing; in the intermediate-risk group 92% opted for cfDNA testing. A prenatal diagnosis was made in 43 (91.5%) pregnancies with trisomy 21 and all pregnancies with trisomies 18 or 13. In many affected pregnancies the parents chose to avoid testing or termination and 32% of pregnancies with trisomy 21 resulted in live births. Conclusions Screening for fetal trisomies by cfDNA analysis of maternal blood, contingent on the results of the combined test, can be implemented easily in routine clinical practice. In the high-risk group from the combined test, most but not all women chose cfDNA testing rather than invasive testing. Performance of screening for trisomy 21 was superior by the cfDNA test than by the combined test. However, prenatal detection of trisomies and pregnancy outcome depend not only on performance of screening tests but also on parental choice. Copyright (c) 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:45 / 52
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] First-trimester contingent screening for trisomy 21 by biomarkers and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing
    Nicolaides, K. H.
    Wright, D.
    Poon, L. C.
    Syngelaki, A.
    Gil, M. M.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 42 (01) : 41 - 50
  • [22] Implementation of Routine First-Trimester Combined Screening for Preeclampsia: A Clinical Effectiveness Study
    Vinekar, Kavita
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 138 (01): : 134 - 134
  • [23] First-trimester maternal plasma cell-free fetal DNA and preeclampsia
    Sifakis, Stavros
    Zaravinos, Apostolos
    Maiz, Nerea
    Spandidos, Demetrios A.
    Nicolaides, Kypros H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 201 (05) : 472.e1 - 472.e7
  • [24] Clinical and Economic Evaluation after Adopting Contingent Cell-Free DNA Screening for Fetal Trisomies in South Spain
    Sainz, Jose A.
    Torres, Maria R.
    Peral, Ignacio
    Granell, Reyes
    Vargas, Manuel
    Carrasco, Pilar
    Garcia-Mejido, Jose A.
    Santacruz, Belen
    Gil, Maria M.
    FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY, 2020, 47 (10) : 749 - 756
  • [25] Should the Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening Test Replace the Quad Screen for Detection of Fetal Trisomies?
    Alattia, Lubna A.
    Ghildyal, Abhilasha
    Ong, Menchu
    Traylor, James G.
    Veillon, Diana M.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2017, 97 : 501A - 501A
  • [26] Should the Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening Test Replace the Quad Screen for Detection of Fetal Trisomies?
    Alattia, Lubna A.
    Ghildyal, Abhilasha
    Ong, Menchu
    Traylor, James G.
    Veillon, Diana M.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2017, 30 : 501A - 501A
  • [27] Prenatal screening of trisomy 21 in Peru through the first-trimester contingent combined plus screening test
    Diez Chang, Guillermo
    Bazan Lossio de Diez, Magdalena Gladys
    REVISTA PERUANA DE GINECOLOGIA Y OBSTETRICIA, 2018, 64 (04): : 563 - 567
  • [28] Clinical application of a contingent screening strategy for trisomies with cell-free DNA: a pilot study
    Angeles Sanchez-Duran, Maria
    Bernabeu Garcia, Andrea
    Calero, Ines
    Ramis Fossas, Jordi
    Illescas, Tamara
    Teresa Aviles, Maria
    Maiz, Nerea
    Carreras, Elena
    BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [29] Clinical application of a contingent screening strategy for trisomies with cell-free DNA: a pilot study
    María Ángeles Sánchez-Durán
    Andrea Bernabeu García
    Inés Calero
    Jordi Ramis Fossas
    Tamara Illescas
    María Teresa Avilés
    Nerea Maiz
    Elena Carreras
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19
  • [30] Low Fetal Fraction and Birth Weight in Women with Negative First-Trimester Cell-Free DNA Screening
    Clapp, Mark A.
    Berry, Margaret
    Shook, Lydia L.
    Roberts, Penelope S.
    Goldfarb, Ilona T.
    Bernstein, Sarah N.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2020, 37 (01) : 86 - 91