Implementation Of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing Research Articles

Impact of the new government-involved noninvasive prenatal testing certification system on the awareness of pregnant women about noninvasive prenatal testing in Japan.

In Japan, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been performed by facilities accredited by the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology since 2013. However, since 2016, with the implementation of NIPT, which can only be performed by blood sampling, non-obstetricians have been involved in prenatal testing. Therefore, in July 2022, a new government-involved NIPT certification system based on Health Sciences Council guidelines was introduced to ensure access to prenatal testing information for pregnant women. This survey was conducted in February 2023 and was the first survey after the certification system implementation. We conducted a web-based survey of 1227 pregnant women and nursing mothers who underwent NIPT after July 2022 to evaluate their experiences. Respondents were categorized by certification status as certified (C: 56%), non-certified (non-C: 23%), or uncertain (Q: 20%). The C group with a higher mean age at examination (35.0 ± 4.5 years) paid lower examination fees, received longer pre- and post-examination explanations, and underwent more weekday examinations (80%) than the other groups. Most respondents, 67%, 48%, and 53% in the C, non-C, and Q groups, respectively (p < 0.0001), stated that "NIPT needs to be regulated by the government or academic societies." The non-C group was more likely to say, "Insufficient post-test explanations at the laboratory made me more anxious," than the other groups when the testing results were non-negative (p = 0.015). Despite government regulation, some pregnant women choose convenience over certified facilities, risking inadequate care. The government should ensure that NIPT is a safe option for all pregnant women.

Mainstreaming genetics into Italian prenatal care: exploring the future implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Italian National Healthcare System using stakeholder interviews

IntroductionNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionised the way prenatal testing is performed globally. Italy is one of the European countries considering incorporating NIPT nationwide into the publicly funded healthcare system....

The implementation and impact of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into antenatal screening programmes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a widely adopted maternal blood test that analyses foetal originating DNA to screen for foetal chromosomal conditions, including Down's syndrome (DS). The introduction of this test, which may have implications for important decisions made during pregnancy, requires continual monitoring and evaluation. This systematic review aims to assess the extent of NIPT introduction into national screening programmes for DS worldwide, its uptake, and impact on pregnancy outcomes. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022306167). We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase for population-based studies, government guidelines, and Public Health documents from 2010 onwards. Results summarised the national policies for NIPT implementation into screening programmes geographically, along with population uptake. Meta-analyses estimated the pooled proportions of women choosing invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) following a high chance biochemical screening result, before and after NIPT was introduced. Additionally, we meta-analysed outcomes (termination of pregnancy and live births) amongst high chance pregnancies identified by NIPT. Results demonstrated NIPT implementation in at least 27 countries. Uptake of second line NIPT varied, from 20.4% to 93.2% (n = 6). Following NIPT implementation, the proportion of women choosing IPD after high chance biochemical screening decreased from 75% (95% CI 53%, 88%, n = 5) to 43% (95%CI 31%, 56%, n = 5), an absolute risk reduction of 38%. A pooled estimate of 69% (95% CI 52%, 82%, n = 7) of high chance pregnancies after NIPT resulted in termination, whilst 8% (95% CI 3%, 21%, n = 7) had live births of babies with DS. NIPT has rapidly gained global acceptance, but population uptake is influenced by healthcare structures, historical screening practices, and cultural factors. Our findings indicate a reduction in IPD tests following NIPT implementation, but limited pre-NIPT data hinder comprehensive impact assessment. Transparent, comparable data reporting is vital for monitoring NIPT's potential consequences.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Using Fetal Fraction Enrichment—A Pilot Study

Background: To evaluate the clinical performance and clinical implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using fetal fraction (FF) enrichment. Methods: Both standard NIPT and NIPT with FF enrichment were performed concurrently to 277 clinical samples. Results: On average, the FF of each sample processed by NIPT with FF enrichment was 1.9-fold higher than without enrichment. 88% (43/49) of samples with low FF in standard NIPT were recovered by the enrichment method. 11 more copy number variants (CNVs) which were confirmed by prenatal diagnosis were detected by NIPT with FF enrichment. NIPT with FF enrichment generated a positive predictive value of 75% for CNVs (≥3 Mb and 22q11.2 ≥1 Mb). NIPT with FF enrichment showed similar performance in the detection of common trisomy when compared with the standard method. Pregnant women with higher body mass indexes experienced significantly greater enriching effects on FF from NIPT with the enrichment protocol. Conclusions: NIPT with FF enrichment effectively elevated the FF level. This method is capable of detecting significantly more concordant CNVs with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%. Our data suggest that this enhanced version of NIPT can be used to improve the screening performance of clinically significant fetal CNVs but it should only be recommended when comprehensive counseling is available.

A statistical investigation of parameters associated with low cell-free fetal DNA fraction in maternal plasma for noninvasive prenatal testing

Background Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is the most common method for prenatal aneuploidy screening. Low fetal fraction (LFF) is the primary reason for NIPT failure. Consequently, factors associated with LFF should be elucidated for optimal clinical implementation of NIPT. Methods In this study, NIPT data from January 2019 to December 2022 from the laboratory records and obstetrical and neonatal data from the electronic medical records were collected and analyzed. Subjects with FF >3.50% were assigned to the control group, subjects with FF <3.50% once were assigned to the LFF group, and subjects with FF <3.50% twice were assigned to the repetitive low fetal fraction (RLFF) group. Factors, including body mass index (BMI), gestational age, maternal age, twin pregnancy, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) known to be associated with LFF were assessed by Kruskal–Wallis H test and logistic regression. Clinical data on first trimester pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A), beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), gestational age at delivery, birth weight at delivery, and maternal diseases were obtained from the hospital’s prenatal and neonatal screening systems (twin pregnancy was not included in the data on gestational age at delivery and the control group did not include data on maternal diseases.), and were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis H test and Chi-square test. Results Among the total of 63,883 subjects, 63,605 subjects were assigned to the control group, 197 subjects were assigned to the LFF group, and 81 subjects were assigned to the RLFF group. The median of BMI in the three groups was 22.43 kg/m2 (control), 25.71 kg/m2 (LFF), and 24.54 kg/m2 (RLFF). The median gestational age in the three groups was 130 days (control), 126 days (LFF), and 122/133 days (RLFF). The median maternal age in the three groups was 29 (control), 29 (LFF), and 33-years-old (RLFF). The proportion of twin pregnancies in the three groups was 3.3% (control), 10.7% (LFF), and 11.7% (RLFF). The proportion of IVF in the three groups was 4.7% (control), 11.7% (LFF), and 21.3% (RLFF). The factors significantly associated with LFF included BMI [2.18, (1.94, 2.45), p < 0.0001], gestational age [0.76, (0.67, 0.87), p < 0.0001], twin pregnancy [1.62, (1.02, 2.52), p = 0.0353], and IVF [2.68, (1.82, 3.86), p < 0.0001]. The factors associated with RLFF included maternal age [1.54, (1.17, 2.05), p = 0.0023] and IVF [2.55, (1.19, 5.54), p = 0.016]. Multiples of the median (MOM) value of β-hCG and pregnant persons’ gestational age at delivery were significantly decreased in the LFF and RLFF groups compared to the control group. Conclusion According to our findings based on the OR value, factors associated strongly with LFF include a high BMI and the use of IVF. Factors associated less strongly with LFF include early gestational age and twin pregnancy, while advanced maternal age and IVF were independent risk factors for a second LFF result.

Bioethical dilemmas in prenatal diagnosis: non-invasive prenatal test and new technologies

Every pregnant woman in the Spanish national health system is offered the option of controlling her pregnancy by means of prenatal screening. For women in a high-risk situation, non-invasive techniques for the detection of chromosomal aneuploidies are now available, which have the advantage of not endangering the life of the fetus, facilitating subsequent prenatal genetic diagnosis. However, despite the potential medical benefits for both pregnant women and fetuses, the widespread implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) raises a number of ethical issues. The objective of this work is to explore the ethical aspects derived from the implementation of the NIPT from the perspective of the main philosophical currents in bioethics and their implications for the health professional. In particular, it focus on the ethical aspects raised by the NIPT according to the major bioethical currents, the possible ethical dilemmas that the clinical advisor faces based on these currents and the requirements that genetic counseling for an ethical implementation of NIPT in clinical practice taking advantage of its advantages without violate human dignity.

Inclusion of sex chromosomes in noninvasive prenatal testing in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA: A survey study.

To examine the extent to which sex chromosomes are included in current noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and the reporting practices with respect to fetal chromosomal sex and sex chromosome aberrations (SCAs), in addition to an update on the general implementation of NIPT. A questionnaire addressing the research objectives was distributed by email to fetal medicine and clinical genetics experts in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA. Guidelines on NIPT are available in the majority of the included countries. Not all existing guidelines address reporting of fetal chromosomal sex and SCAs. In most settings, NIPT frequently includes sex chromosomes (five Australian states, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, Thailand, USA and 23 of 31 European countries). This occurs most often by default or when parents wish to know fetal sex. In most settings, a potential SCA is reported by stating the risk hereof as "low" or "high" and/or by naming the SCA. Less than 50% of all pregnant women receive NIPT according to respondents from three Australian states, China, Israel, Singapore, Thailand and 24 of 31 European countries. However, this percentage, the genomic coverage of NIPT and its application as primary or secondary screening vary by setting. In most of the studied countries/states, NIPT commonly includes sex chromosomes. The reporting practices concerning fetal chromosomal sex and SCAs are diverse and most commonly not addressed by guidelines. In general, NIPT is variably implemented across countries/states.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for everybody or contingent screening?

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of two main implementation strategies for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the detection of trisomies 21, 13 and 18 in public healthcare settings. These concern NIPT as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women, or NIPT contingent on an increased risk first-trimester combined test (FCT) result. Comparison based on (un)published data and literature. Despite the lower prevalence of trisomies in the low-risk population, data show that the positive predictive value (PPV) and detection-miscarriage ratio of first-tier NIPT are comparable to NIPT used as contingency test. Advantages of NIPT as a first-tier test compared to FCT with contingent NIPT are that there is no time-window for testing, sensitivity is higher, fewer women need follow-up testing (PPV of NIPT is higher than PPV of FCT), less anxiety for pregnant women and partners. When given the choice, pregnant women prefer first-tier NIPT. Although contingency testing still seems to be the cheaper option, the differences in costs are becoming increasingly smaller and might soon disappear. We argue that NIPT should preferably be offered as a first-tier test for the detection of fetal aneuploidies for all pregnant women, provided that women are supported to make informed decisions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Issues associated with possible implementation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in First-Tier Screening: A Rapid Scoping Review.

In recent years, as the implementation and use of NIPT have increased, the cost of the test has been decreasing. The cost of NIPT is expected to fall further in the upcoming years. As a result of the decreasing cost of NIPT, many jurisdictions may change their prenatal screening policies towards abandoning serum-based screening and instead, implement and support NIPT as the first-tier screening for all women. There are several concerns in replacing first-trimester screening with NIPT. In this scoping review, we aimed to map the existing knowledge about possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening, and to assess if any jurisdiction has altered its policy and discontinued serum based prenatal screening in exchange for NIPT. The Medline database (Ovid) and Google Scholar was searched and all the studies discussing, investigating, or reporting on the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening were included. All the studies went through a two-stage screening process and included full-text articles were reviewed and charted, and the data is summarized narratively and put in tables. Findings from this scoping review may be informative for stakeholders and policymakers regarding recent changes in NIPT implementation policies around the world and may aid with developing policy for NIPT implementation with a broader perspective. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

First Trimester Screening - Current Status and Future Prospects After Introduction of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) at a Tertiary Referral Center.

Objective To investigate the uptake of different components of first trimester screening (FTS) and the impact on invasive diagnostic testing (IPT) since the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at a level III center. Methods Retrospective data analysis was conducted for singleton pregnancies that presented for FTS between 01/2019–12/2019 (group 1, n = 990). Patients were categorized into three risk groups: low risk for trisomy 21 (< 1 : 1000), intermediate risk (1 : 101–1 : 1000) and high risk (≥ 1 : 100). Uptake of NIPT and IPT was analyzed for each of the risk groups. Results were compared to a previous cohort from 2012/2013 (immediately after the introduction of NIPT, group 2, n = 1178). Results Group 1 showed a significant increase in the use of NIPT as part of FTS (29.5% vs. 3.7% for group 2, p = 0.001) in all three risk groups. Overall IPT rates were lower in group 1 (8.6%) vs. group 2 (11.3%, p = 0.038), mainly due to a significant reduction of IPT in the intermediate risk group. IPT rates in the high-risk group remained stable over time. Conclusion Appropriate clinical implementation of NIPT is still currently a challenge for prenatal medicine experts. Our data suggest that widespread uptake of NIPT is becoming more common these days; however, a contingent approach might prevent redundant uptake.

Noninvasive Prenatal Test Results Indicative of Maternal Malignancies: A Nationwide Genetic and Clinical Follow-Up Study.

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy screening using cell-free DNA derived from maternal plasma can incidentally raise suspicion for cancer. Diagnostic routing after malignancy suspicious-NIPT faces many challenges. Here, we detail malignancy suspicious-NIPT cases, and describe the clinical characteristics, chromosomal aberrations, and diagnostic routing of the patients with a confirmed malignancy. Clinical lessons can be learned from our experience. Patients with NIPT results indicative of a malignancy referred for tumor screening between April 2017 and April 2020 were retrospectively included from a Dutch nationwide NIPT implementation study, TRIDENT-2. NIPT profiles from patients with confirmed malignancies were reviewed, and the pattern of chromosomal aberrations related to tumor type was analyzed. We evaluated the diagnostic contribution of clinical and genetic examinations. Malignancy suspicious-NIPT results were reported in 0.03% after genome-wide NIPT, and malignancies confirmed in 16 patients (16/48, 33.3%). Multiple chromosomal aberrations were seen in 23 of 48 patients with genome-wide NIPT, and a malignancy was confirmed in 16 patients (16/23, 69.6%). After targeted NIPT, 0.005% malignancy suspicious-NIPT results were reported, in 2/3 patients a malignancy was confirmed. Different tumor types and stages were diagnosed, predominantly hematologic malignancies (12/18). NIPT data showed recurrent gains and losses in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphomas and classic Hodgkin lymphomas. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography were most informative in diagnosing the malignancy. In 231,896 pregnant women, a low percentage (0.02%) of NIPT results were assessed as indicative of a maternal malignancy. However, when multiple chromosomal aberrations were found, the risk of a confirmed malignancy was considerably high. Referral for extensive oncologic examination is recommended, and may be guided by tumor-specific hallmarks in the NIPT profile.

Preserving women’s reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany

On July 2021, the UK High Court of Justice heard the Case CO/2066/2020 on the application of Heidi Crowter who lives with Down’s syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson whose son Aidan...

Implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing within a national UK antenatal screening programme: Impact on women's choices.

To evaluate the implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on pregnant women's choices in a national NHS antenatal screening programme for Down's syndrome, Edwards' syndrome and Patau's syndrome. An observational study of all pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy and higher chance (≤1:150) combined or quadruple screening result from 30 April 2018 to 25 September 2020 in Wales, UK. Pregnant women's journey through the pathway was determined including uptake of NIPT, performance of NIPT in a non-research setting and invasive procedures performed. Of the 1273 women with a higher chance initial screening, 1073 (84%) chose NIPT contingent test, 174 (14%) no further testing and 26 (2%) invasive procedure. There were 1001 (93%) low chance NIPT results; 11 (1%) failed results and 61 (6%) high chance results. Average annual incidence of 27 invasive procedures undertaken compared to 229 pre-NIPT implementation, a nearly ninefold reduction. Down's syndrome annual live birth rate remained unchanged across the implementation period. This study demonstrates that NIPT contingent screening was highly acceptable to women with a resulting reduction in invasive procedures performed. The high uptake of NIPT in NHS antenatal screening pathway conditions should inform planning for other national screening programmes.

The Next Frontier in Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnostics: Cell-Free Fetal DNA Analysis for Monogenic Disease Assessment.

With the widespread clinical adoption of noninvasive screening for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies based on cell-free DNA analysis from maternal plasma, more researchers are turning their attention to noninvasive prenatal assessment for single-gene disorders. The development of a spectrum of approaches to analyze cell-free DNA in maternal circulation, including relative mutation dosage, relative haplotype dosage, and size-based methods, has expanded the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing to sex-linked and autosomal recessive disorders. Cell-free fetal DNA analysis for several of the more prevalent single-gene disorders has recently been introduced into clinical service. This article reviews the analytical approaches currently available and discusses the extent of the clinical implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for single-gene disorders.

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Whole Genome Sequencing: An Interpretive Critical Review of the Ethical, Legal, Social, and Policy Implications

Introduction: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows for genetic testing of a fetus through the analysis of cell-free DNA from the mother’s plasma. NIPT is easy and safe for the fetus, since it only requires a blood draw from the mother and therefore holds no risk of miscarriage. It is considered superior to other prenatal screening tests and can also be performed earlier in the pregnancy. NIPT has the future potential for fetal whole genome sequencing (FWGS) for an expanded range of conditions, such as late onset genetic conditions and carrier status. Objective: To review ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of the potential use of non-invasive prenatal testing for FWGS. Methods: This study is a critical interpretive literature review exploring and reporting ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of potential future implementation of NIPT for FWGS, which will be referred to as non-invasive prenatal whole genome sequencing (NIPW). Database and reference list searching was conducted between 2010 and 2019 for terms related to “non-invasive prenatal testing” AND “fetal whole genome sequencing” and derivatives. Results: Following screening, 32 articles were included. Data were grouped into four thematic categories: 1) ethical implications for the future child concerning autonomy and harms, as well as for prospective parents involving autonomy, informed consent concerns, and harms; 2) legal implications including privacy concerns; 3) social implications including changes in family dynamics, altered societal perceptions and disability concerns, justice and equity in accessing the test, and social pressure to use the test; and 4) policy implications including cost and funding concerns, limiting the scope of testing, as well as counseling, education, and support. Discussion: The discussion of results highlights several ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of NIPT use for FWGS. These findings have implications on NIPT implementation for FWGS including how the autonomy of the future child should be balanced with the autonomy of prospective parents, the scope of conditions that should or should not be tested for – and covered or not covered by the healthcare system – and the regulation of FWGS introduction, among others. Further research needs to be performed to address these concerns and hence guide the discussion about the clinical implementation of FWGS through NIPT.

Ethical Issues Relating to Prenatal Genetic Testing

"Introduction: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a rapidly developing genomic technology that is constantly widening its scope and opening up new possibilities in reproductive medicine. Ten years after NIPT has been made commercially available, it is increasingly entering routine antenatal care as either a first- or second-tier test. In England, France and Germany, for example, NIPT has been made available free-of-charge as a second-tier test to women with a higher chance of common chromosomal anomalies. The clinical implementation of NIPT carries benefits but also raises important ethical questions. Our project analyses these questions within their specific contexts in England, France and Germany. Methods: As part of a wider research project, which will involve qualitative methods, we conducted a document analysis to compare arguments about, and regulations governing NIPT in the three countries in: law and policy document; public reports; medical press; academic literature; and media. Results: Despite the similarities between the three countries to offer NIPT as a second-tier screening tool, they exhibit differences with regard to their public discourses about prenatal genomics, screening policies, the risk-thresholds they use, professional regulations and laws. These differences have an impact on the way ethical issues emerge, and questions about the meaning of health, illness and disability, the scope of public health interventions, social inclusion and exclusion as well as reproductive choice are approached in each country. "

The implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands.

In the Netherlands prenatal screening is offered as a mean to increase reproductive choices of couples. All women are counseled on the existing options by trained midwives. The government puts a great emphasis on informed choice and on womens' opinions and reactions to screenings options. Since 2017 non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT, cf-DNA) is offered as first tier screening for aneuploidies in the genome-wide (GW) variant at the cost of 175 Euro's. Uptake is around 50%. This screenings offer is perceived as unconventional for the traditionally cautious Dutch system.

Do non-invasive prenatal tests promote discrimination against people with Down syndrome? What should be done?

By implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS) in maternity care, an ethical debate is newly inflamed how to deal with this information. Fears of the consequences of an increased use of NIPT are justified with the same arguments when amniocentesis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) were introduced decades ago. It can be expected that the prevalence of people with DS would significantly increase in Western societies as a result of the increasing age of pregnant women and the improved medical care for people with DS. The net effect as to whether an increasing uptake of NIPT will result in more abortions of fetuses with trisomy 21 cannot be reliably estimated. This holds true since more and more couples will use results of NIPT for information only, but will not opt for termination of pregnancy. Although parents love their children with DS, in a society where reproductive autonomy is seen as an achievement, access to NIPT cannot be limited. On this background, comprehensive and qualified pretest counseling is vital, also to avoid possible stigmatization of people with DS and as the resulting consequence to avoid feared deterioration in their living conditions, for which, however, there is no evidence to date. The personal view of a mother of a child with DS illustrates the complexity in dealing with NIPT, which does not allow simple answers and must be understood as a challenge for society as a whole.

Avoiding 'selection'?-References to history in current German policy debates about non-invasive prenatal testing.

This article investigates the role of historical references and arguments in the current policy debate on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Germany. It analyses major documents and opinion statements, including the recent parliamentary debate (2019). The implementation of NIPT is accompanied by concerns and strong criticism, particularly in Germany. Many perceive the new test to be a problematic step that facilitates selective practices and is reminiscent of eugenics. Analysis of the German policy discourse shows that 'eugenics', and even more strongly, 'selection', are pivotal terms for rejecting NIPT and its coverage by public health insurance. They touch on a historical dimension in public deliberation, namely the fundamental distancing from the inhuman practices of the National Socialist period and anything that resembles them. However, using these terms to criticize prenatal genetic testing is controversial, and recent discourse demonstrates their avoidance as well, with many supporters of a limited coverage by public health insurance contrasting their approach with more widespread screening. Here, 'screening' has a negative connotation, and functions to demarcate the debate in a way that may reflect distance from certain modes of historical reasoning, but still expresses a special need to reconcile prenatal testing with the principles of dignity, inclusion and diversity. This article aims to elucidate the concerns involved in the national debates on prenatal testing and to increase awareness of the historical dimensions of the language and reasoning with which such methods are negotiated today and in future.

The Emergence and Global Spread of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.

Since its introduction in 2011, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has spread rapidly around the world. It carries numerous benefits but also raises challenges, often related to sociocultural, legal, and economic contexts. This article describes the implementation of NIPT in nine countries, each with its own unique characteristics: Australia, Canada, China and Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Themes covered for each country include the structure of the healthcare system, how NIPT is offered, counseling needs and resources, and cultural and legal context regarding disability and pregnancytermination. Some common issues emerge, including cost as a barrier to equitable access, the complexity of decision-making about public funding, and a shortage of appropriate resources that promote informed choice. Conversely, sociocultural values that underlie the use of NIPT vary greatly among countries. The issues described will become even more challenging as NIPT evolves from a second-tier to a first-tier screening test with expanded use.