Indications for Invasive Prenatal Testing before and after Noninvasive Prenatal Screening

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 1084-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Prosen ◽  
Lisa Gill

Objective To evaluate changes in indications for genetic testing after introduction of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) into a single center. Pregnancy outcomes and results of testing were evaluated. Study Design It was a retrospective cohort study. Medical records were reviewed for all invasive testing procedures from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2015. NIPS was introduced in February 1, 2012. Indications were compared before and after that date. Results of genetic testing and pregnancy outcome were also obtained from the medical records where available. Results A total of 2,066 invasive diagnostic procedures were performed. Significantly fewer invasive procedures were performed per month following introduction of NIPS (23 vs. 13). Indications were less likely to be reported as advanced maternal age (AMA), abnormal genetic screening, and abnormal ultrasound findings following introduction of NIPS (p < 0.0001). No difference was noted for parental chromosome abnormality, risk of single-gene disorder, or prior child with aneuploidy. Tests performed after introduction of NIPS were more likely abnormal (16.3 vs. 27.6%; p < 0.0001).Total number of pregnancy terminations decreased (130 vs. 123); more were terminated after prenatal diagnosis following NIPS introduction (12.9 vs. 30.1%). Conclusion Since the introduction of NIPS, fewer invasive tests are performed. Indications have changed since NIPS was introduced, becoming less common for AMA, abnormal genetic screening, and abnormal ultrasounds.

2018 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 117S
Author(s):  
Melissa Maisenbacher ◽  
Wendy DiNonno ◽  
Katrina Merrion ◽  
Michael Young ◽  
Styrmir Sigurjonsson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Gu ◽  
Sudong Liu ◽  
Huaxian Wang ◽  
Ruiqiang Weng ◽  
Xuemin Guo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Although a variety of non-invasive techniques are used for prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis, our knowledge remains limited regarding the relationship between high-risk prenatal indications and fetal chromosomal abnormalities.Methods: We retrospectively investigated the prenatal genetic screening and karyotype analysis results of pregnant women who had undergone invasive prenatal testing in Prenatal Diagnosis Department of Meizhou People’s Hospital during Jan. 1, 2015 to Dec. 31, 2019. We analyzed the frequencies of chromosome abnormalities in women with high-risk indications.Results: A total of 2,193 pregnant women who had underwent invasive prenatal testing were included in our analysis. Chromosomal abnormalities occurred in 10.3% of these women, and rate increased with maternal age (P < 0.001). The frequencies of chromosome abnormalities varied for women with different high-risk indications, which was 10.3% (226/2193) for abnormal ultrasound results, 3.3% (31/938) for positive serum screening test results, 61.4% (78/127) for positive NIPT results, 9.3% (13/140) for AMA and 11.1% (10/90) for obstetric/family history. Follow up data showed that 380 pregnant women opted for termination the pregnancy, including 211 (55.5%) due to karyotype abnormalities and 169 (45.5%) due to abnormal ultrasonic outcomes.Conclusion: Our data suggested that the prenatal screening methods have high false positive rates. NIPT is the most accurate non-invasive prenatal screening. Apart from karyotype abnormality, abnormal ultrasound results alone accounted for a big part of pregnancy termination.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 741-749
Author(s):  
Roberta Mitrevska ◽  
Rozalinda Isjanovska

Prenatal screening and diagnostic tests are associated with great anticipation, many questions, and different attitudes for the condition of the fetus, as well as providing important information about the health and condition of the future baby. The study included 507 respondents.The aim of the research is to determine the attitudes of Macedonian women for prenatal testing as preventive public health procedures, depending on their demographic characteristics.The research is an analytical sectional study whose results were collected by a questionnaire that was made for the purposes of the study, and included women-mothers with at least one pregnancy.To follow the observation about attitudes toward prenatal screening and diagnostic procedures,  a descriptive analysis of the total number of points was made, where we found that surveyed women in Macedonia don`t have precisely built views ( opinions ) regarding prenatal screening and diagnostic procedures . The higher level of attitudes towards prenatal screening and diagnostic procedures associated with respondents of age group under 49 years, who are  residing in the city, with high educational level, married, nationality Macedonians, have health insurance, those who have children with developmental disabilities and women with one to two pregnancies. But although there are differences in demographic characteristics, respondents in 67.1 % are unanimous in terms of attitude that prenatal screening tests should be used by all pregnant women. For this view is unspecified are 25.2%, 7.7 %  of the respondents disagree .


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. e87-e92
Author(s):  
Tracy B. Grossman ◽  
Stephen T. Chasen

Abstract Background Advances in genetic screening can identify patients at high risk for common genetic conditions early in pregnancy and can facilitate early diagnosis and early abortion. Less common abnormalities might only be diagnosed with invasive testing is performed after structural abnormalities are identified. Objective Our objective was to compare gestational age (GA) at diagnosis and abortion for genetic abnormalities identified based on screening with abnormalities that were not discovered after screening. Study Design All prenatal diagnostic procedures from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed, and singleton pregnancies terminated following diagnosis of genetic abnormalities were identified. Cases diagnosed as the result of screening tests were compared with remaining cases. Conditions were considered “screened for” if they can be suspected by cell-free DNA testing, biochemistry, carrier screening, or if the patient was a known carrier of a single-gene disorder. When abnormal karyotype, microarray, or Noonan's syndrome was associated with abnormal NT, these cases were considered “screened for.” GA at abortion was the primary outcome. Fisher's exact test and Mann–Whitney's U test were used for statistical comparison. Results In this study, 268 cases were included. A total of 227 (85%) of abortions were performed for “screened for” disorders, with 210 (93%) of these for karyotype abnormalities, 5 (2%) for microarray abnormalities, and 12 (5%) for single-gene disorders. Forty-one (15%) of abortions were performed for conditions not included in screening, with 8 (19%) of those for karyotype abnormalities, 25 (61%) for microarray abnormalities, and 8 (19%) for single-gene disorders. Invasive testing and abortion occurred at earlier median GA for those with conditions that were screened for: 122/7 versus 155/7 weeks, p ≤0.001 and 135/7 versus 200/7 weeks; p ≤0.001. Conclusion Most abortions were for abnormalities that can be suspected early in pregnancy. As many structural abnormalities associated with rare conditions are not identifiable until the mid-trimester, prenatal diagnosis and abortion occurred significantly later. Physicians and patients should be aware of the limitations of genetic screening.


OBM Genetics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 05 (04) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Daniel Navon ◽  
◽  
Gareth Thomas ◽  

In this article, we discuss the radical uncertainties unleashed by expanded prenatal genetics. We show how we are now routinely screening fetuses in the absence of two essential sorts of information. At the population level, we do not have sound, unbiased data about the prevalence, penetrance, and clinical variability of most mutations. At the level of the proband, it is often too soon to discern relevant information about the fetus’ phenotype. First, we outline the longstanding ethical objections to newborn screening for poorly understood genetic anomalies and disorders, and explain how it limits our understanding of their penetrance and variability. Next, we contrast the strong restrictions and regulations around newborn screening with the more laissez-faire framework for prenatal screening, using the rollout of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as the timeliest and most illuminating example. We show how new conditions are added to NIPT kits based on technological feasibility and profit motive, leading to widespread prenatal screening for incompletely understood genetic disorders. Finally, we explore the myriad dilemmas that ‘screening before we know’ creates for counsellors, caregivers, and prospective parents in the age of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening, and argue for an approach that openly embraces the radical uncertainties we face.


Crisis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 367-374
Author(s):  
Sarah P. Carter ◽  
Brooke A. Ammerman ◽  
Heather M. Gebhardt ◽  
Jonathan Buchholz ◽  
Mark A. Reger

Abstract. Background: Concerns exist regarding the perceived risks of conducting suicide-focused research among an acutely distressed population. Aims: The current study assessed changes in participant distress before and after participation in a suicide-focused research study conducted on a psychiatric inpatient unit. Method: Participants included 37 veterans who were receiving treatment on a psychiatric inpatient unit and completed a survey-based research study focused on suicide-related behaviors and experiences. Results: Participants reported no significant changes in self-reported distress. The majority of participants reported unchanged or decreased distress. Reviews of electronic medical records revealed no behavioral dysregulation and minimal use of as-needed medications or changes in mood following participation. Limitations: The study's small sample size and veteran population may limit generalizability. Conclusion: Findings add to research conducted across a variety of settings (i.e., outpatient, online, laboratory), indicating that participating in suicide-focused research is not significantly associated with increased distress or suicide risk.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document