Abstract
The objective of our study was to describe the clinical experience in offering noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy to pregnant patients, highlighting the clinical utility, barriers to acceptance and limitations of this novel test. Data were collected from 961 patients offered NIPT from 3/1/12 to 9/30/12. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Twenty-eight percent of patients elected NIPT and 72 % declined. Women continue to elect less sensitive and less specific screening through biochemical markers and nuchal translucency. Women considering all options at average risk for aneuploidy were less likely to accept NIPT testing than women who had a risk adjustment from an ultrasound marker or routine screening test. In our multi-ethnic population, Filipina women were significantly less likely to elect NIPT compared to other ethnicities. Five percent of NIPT ordered failed analysis. Several chromosome abnormalities were detected through CVS or amniocentesis that would not have been detected by NIPT. Even though NIPT offers a non-invasive, highly sensitive and specific analysis for aneuploidy, the majority of women in our study declined this option. NIPT should be offered in the context of genetic counseling so that women understand the limitations of the testing and make an educated decision about the testing option best suited to their situation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACOG Committee. (2007). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 88: invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110(6), 1459–1467.
ACOG Committee. (2012). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 545: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 120(6), 1532–1534.
Bianchi, D. W., Platt, L. D., Goldberg, J. D. et al. (2012). Genome-Wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstetrics and Gynecology 119(5).
Biba, E. (2012). This simple blood test reveals birth defects—and the future of pregnancy. Retrieved 24 December 2012, from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/12/ff-prenatal-testesting/all/
Finning, K., & Chitty, L. (2008). Non-invasive fetal sex determination: Impact on clinical practice. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 13(2), 69–75.
Green, J. M., Hewison, J., Bekker, H. L., Bryant, L. D., & Cuckle, H. S. (2004). Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 8(33), 1–124.
Hall, A., Bostanci, A., & Wright, C. F. (2010). Non-Invasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free fetal DNA technology: applications and implications. Public Health Genomics, 13(4), 246–255.
Hawkins, A., Stenzel, A., Taylor, J. et al. (2012) Variables influencing pregnancy termination following prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosome abnormalities. Journal of Genetic Counseling Sep 23
Hyett, J. A., Gardener, G., Stojilkovic-Mikic, T., et al. (2005). Reduction in diagnostic and therapeutic interventions by non-invasive determination of fetal sex in early pregnancy. Prenatal Diagnosis, 25(12), 1111–1116.
Kagan, K. O., Wright, D., Baker, A., et al. (2008). Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 31, 618–624.
Kooij, L., Tymstra, T., & van den Berg, P. (2009). The attitude of women toward current and future possibilities of diagnostic testing in maternal blood using fetal DNA. Prenatal Diagnosis, 29, 164–168.
Lewis, C., Hill, M., Skirton, H., et al. (2012). Fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA: service users’ experiences of and preferences for service delivery. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32, 735–741.
Mujezinovic, F., & Alfirevic, Z. (2007). Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorinic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110, 687–694.
Nicolaides, K. H., Syngelaki, A., Ashoor, G., et al. (2012). Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies in a routinely screened first-trimester population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 207(5), 374.e1–6.
Norton, M. E., Brar, H., Weiss, J., et al. (2012). Non-Invasive chromosomal evaluation (NICE) study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 207(2), 137.e1–8.
Palomaki, G. E., Kloza, E. M., Lambert-Messerlian, G. M., et al. (2011). DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genetics in Medicine, 13(11), 913.
Picone, O., Senat, M. V., Rosenblatt, J., et al. (2008). Fear of pregnancy loss and fetal karyotyping: a place for third-trimester amniocentesis? Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 23(1), 30–35. Epub 2007 Oct 9.
Sapp, J. C., Hull, S. C., Duffer, S., et al. (2010). Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30(1), 77–82.
Tischler, R., Hudgins, L., Blumenfeld, Y. J., et al. (2011). Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women’s interest and expected uptake. Prenatal Diagnosis, 31(13), 1292–1299.
Conflict of Interest
Our institution recruited patients for Ariosa Diagnostic’s clinical validation study. We were given $8,000 to fund travel to conferences in exchange for this recruitment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, J.B., Chock, V.Y. & Hudgins, L. NIPT in a Clinical Setting: An analysis of Uptake in the First Months of Clinical Availability. J Genet Counsel 23, 72–78 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9609-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9609-z