Scope Of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Research Articles

Unconditional access to non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for adult-onset conditions: a defence

Over the past decade, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been adopted into routine obstetric care to screen for fetal sex, trisomies 21, 18 and 13, sex chromosome aneuploidies and fetal...

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 “Non-Medical” Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making

The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including “non-medical” traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative impacts on the child, family, and society; and issues with implementation. We then outline the case for permitting the use of NIPT for these traits. These include arguments for reproductive liberty and autonomy; questioning the labeling of traits as “non-medical”; and the principle of procreative beneficence. This summary of the case for and against can serve as a basis for the development of a consistent and coherent ethical framework.

Expanding the Scope of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing to Detect Fetal Chromosomal Copy Number Variations.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common fetal trisomies is effective. However, the usefulness of cell-free DNA testing to detect other chromosomal abnormalities is poorly understood. We analyzed the positive rate at different read depths in next-generation sequencing (NGS) and identified a strategy for fetal copy number variant (CNV) detection in NIPT. Pregnant women who underwent NIPT by NGS at read depths of 4–6 M and fetuses with suspected CNVs were analyzed by amniocentesis and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). These fetus samples were re-sequenced at a read depth of 25 M and the positive detection rate was determined. With the increase in read depth, the positive CNV detection rate increased. The positive CNV detection rates at 25 M with small fragments were higher by NGS than by karyotype analysis. Increasing read depth in NGS improves the positive CNV detection rate while lowering the false positive detection rate. NIPT by NGS may be an accurate method of fetal chromosome analysis and reduce the rate of birth defects.

A qualitative study of women and partners from Lebanon and Quebec regarding an expanded scope of noninvasive prenatal testing

BackgroundIn the near future, developments in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) may offer couples the opportunity to expand the range of genetic conditions tested with this technology. This possibility raises a host of ethical and social concerns, such as the type of information (medical vs. non-medical information) that couples might be exposed to and how this might complicate their informed decision-making. Currently, only limited research, mainly carried out in western countries, was conducted on women’s and partners’ views regarding the potential expansion of NIPT.MethodsThis study used semi-structured interviews with pregnant women and their partners to explore their views on future potential NIPT applications such as non-medical sex selection and non-medical traits, paternity testing, and NIPT use for fetal whole genome sequencing (FWGS). It was conducted in Lebanon and Quebec, as case studies to explore the impact of cultural differences on these views.ResultsWe found no differences and many similarities when comparing the perceptions of participants in both contexts. While couples in both settings disapproved of the use of NIPT for non-medical sex selection and non-medical traits such as physical characteristics, they were near-unanimous about their support for its use for paternity testing in specific cases, such as legal doubts or conflicts related to the identity of the father. Participants were more ambivalent about NIPT for Fetal Whole Genome Sequencing. They supported this use to detect conditions that would express at birth or early childhood, while objecting to testing for adult-onset conditions.ConclusionsThese results can further inform the debate on the future uses of NIPT and future policy related its implementation.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens' attitudes.

The introduction of the accurate and procedurally easy non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) raises ethical concerns that public attitudes towards prenatal screening may change, leading to societal pressure to participate in aneuploidy screening. This study examined Dutch citizens' attitudes towards a pregnant woman's decision to (1) decline NIPT in the context of two different funding policies and (2) to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by different disorders. The attitudes of 1096 respondents were assessed with the contrastive vignette method, using two pairs of vignettes about declining NIPT and termination of pregnancy. Most respondents either agreed with a woman's decision to decline NIPT or were neutral about it, stating that this decision should be made independently by women, and does not warrant judgement by others. Interestingly, funding policies did influence respondents' attitudes: significantly more respondents disagreed with declining NIPT when it was fully reimbursed. Respondents had similar attitudes to the vignettes on termination and continuation of pregnancy in case of Down's syndrome. In case of Edwards' or Patau's syndrome, however, significantly more respondents disagreed with continuation, citing the severity of the disorder and the child's best interests. This study demonstrates broad acknowledgement of women's freedom of choice in Dutch society; a finding that may help to rebut existing concerns about societal pressure for pregnant women to participate in prenatal screening. As the reimbursement policy and the scope of NIPT may influence people's attitudes and elicit moral judgements, however, maintaining freedom of choice warrants sustained efforts by health professionals and policy makers.

Limits to the scope of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): an analysis of the international ethical framework for prenatal screening and an interview study with Dutch professionals

BackgroundThe introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for foetal aneuploidies is currently changing the field of prenatal screening in many countries. As it is non-invasive, safe and accurate, this technique allows for a broad implementation of first-trimester prenatal screening, which raises ethical issues, related, for instance, to informed choice and adverse societal consequences. This article offers an account of a leading international ethical framework for prenatal screening, examines how this framework is used by professionals working in the field of NIPT, and presents ethical guidance for the expansion of the scope of prenatal screening in practice.MethodsA comparative analysis of authoritative documents is combined with 15 semi-structured interviews with professionals in the field of prenatal screening in the Netherlands. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe current ethical framework consists of four pillars: the aim of screening, the proportionality of the test, justice, and societal aspects. Respondents recognised and supported this framework in practice, but expressed some concerns. Professionals felt that pregnant women do not always make informed choices, while this is seen as central to reproductive autonomy (the aim of screening), and that pre-test counselling practices stand in need of improvement. Respondents believed that the benefits of NIPT, and of an expansion of its scope, outweigh the harms (proportionality), which are thought to be acceptable. They felt that the out-of-pocket financial contribution currently required by pregnant women constitutes a barrier to access to NIPT, which disproportionally affects those of a lower socioeconomic status (justice). Finally, professionals recognised but did not share concerns about a rising pressure to test or discrimination of disabled persons (societal aspects).ConclusionsFour types of limits to the scope of NIPT are proposed: NIPT should generate only test outcomes that are relevant to reproductive decision-making, informed choice should be (made) possible through adequate pre-test counselling, the rights of future children should be respected, and equal access should be guaranteed. Although the focus of the interview study is on the Dutch healthcare setting, insights and conclusions can be applied internationally and to other healthcare systems.

Ethical and practical challenges in providing noninvasive prenatal testing for chromosome abnormalities: an update.

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) through the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma has rapidly changed screening for fetal chromosome abnormalities. We review practical and ethical challenges associated with the transition, progress in their resolution, and identify new emerging difficulties. NIPT is an advanced screening test for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 that was initially limited to women at high risk for an affected pregnancy. It is now recognized as suitable for all women. The testing has been expanded to include sex chromosome abnormalities and some microdeletion syndromes. Some ethicists are concerned about inclusion of disorders that have less severe phenotypes. Clinical providers have experienced difficulty in maintaining an up-to-date knowledge about the scope of NIPT, differences between tests, who should be offered the testing, performance of tests, reasons for false-positive results, and optimal patient management following positive results. Some of the practical difficulties associated with the introduction can be attributed to this knowledge gap. There remain some important ethical issues associated with NIPT. We believe that the same ethical and legal principles that were considered in the justification of conventional prenatal screening can be used to assess the appropriateness of additional NIPT applications.

Maternal Plasma DNA and RNA Sequencing for Prenatal Testing.

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing has recently become indispensable in diagnostic testing and screening. In the prenatal setting, this type of testing is often called noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). With a number of techniques, using either next-generation sequencing or single nucleotide polymorphism-based approaches, fetal cfDNA in maternal plasma can be analyzed to screen for rhesus D genotype, common chromosomal aneuploidies, and increasingly for testing other conditions, including monogenic disorders. With regard to screening for common aneuploidies, challenges arise when implementing NIPT in current prenatal settings. Depending on the method used (targeted or nontargeted), chromosomal anomalies other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 can be detected, either of fetal or maternal origin, also referred to as unsolicited or incidental findings. For various biological reasons, there is a small chance of having either a false-positive or false-negative NIPT result, or no result, also referred to as a "no-call." Both pre- and posttest counseling for NIPT should include discussing potential discrepancies. Since NIPT remains a screening test, a positive NIPT result should be confirmed by invasive diagnostic testing (either by chorionic villus biopsy or by amniocentesis). As the scope of NIPT is widening, professional guidelines need to discuss the ethics of what to offer and how to offer. In this review, we discuss the current biochemical, clinical, and ethical challenges of cfDNA testing in the prenatal setting and its future perspectives including novel applications that target RNA instead of DNA.

Expanding the Scope of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Objective The purpose of this study was to estimate the performance of a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)–based noninvasive prenatal test for 5 microdeletion syndromes. Study Design Four hundred sixty-nine samples (358 plasma samples from pregnant women, 111 artificial plasma mixtures) were amplified with the use of a massively multiplexed polymerase chain reaction, sequenced, and analyzed with the use of the Next-generation Aneuploidy Test Using SNPs algorithm for the presence or absence of deletions of 22q11.2, 1p36, distal 5p, and the Prader-Willi/Angelman region. Results Detection rates were 97.8% for a 22q11.2 deletion (45/46) and 100% for Prader-Willi (15/15), Angelman (21/21), 1p36 deletion (1/1), and cri-du-chat syndromes (24/24). False-positive rates were 0.76% for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (3/397) and 0.24% for cri-du-chat syndrome (1/419). No false positives occurred for Prader-Willi (0/428), Angelman (0/442), or 1p36 deletion syndromes (0/422). Conclusion SNP-based noninvasive prenatal microdeletion screening is highly accurate. Because clinically relevant microdeletions and duplications occur in >1% of pregnancies, regardless of maternal age, noninvasive screening for the general pregnant population should be considered.

Expanding the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing: detection of fetal microdeletion syndromes

The purpose of this study was to estimate the performance of a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based noninvasive prenatal test for 5 microdeletion syndromes. Four hundred sixty-nine samples (358 plasma samples from pregnant women, 111 artificial plasma mixtures) were amplified with the use of a massively multiplexed polymerase chain reaction, sequenced, and analyzed with the use of the Next-generation Aneuploidy Test Using SNPs algorithm for the presence or absence of deletions of 22q11.2, 1p36, distal 5p, and the Prader-Willi/Angelman region. Detection rates were 97.8% for a 22q11.2 deletion (45/46) and 100% for Prader-Willi (15/15), Angelman (21/21), 1p36 deletion (1/1), and cri-du-chat syndromes (24/24). False-positive rates were 0.76% for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (3/397) and 0.24% for cri-du-chat syndrome (1/419). No false positives occurred for Prader-Willi (0/428), Angelman (0/442), or 1p36 deletion syndromes (0/422). SNP-based noninvasive prenatal microdeletion screening is highly accurate. Because clinically relevant microdeletions and duplications occur in >1% of pregnancies, regardless of maternal age, noninvasive screening for the general pregnant population should be considered.

Combined first trimester screening and cell-free fetal DNA - “next generation screening”

In the last decades, prenatal screening for aneuploidy has become increasingly effective. While first trimester combined screening is considered to be the current gold standard, the use of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA), which is also called noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), will result in a change of paradigm. Respective studies indicate that in screening for trisomy 21, the detection and false-positive rates are 99 % and 0.1 %, respectively. For trisomies 18 and 13, there is less evidence but recent studies report detection rates of 98 % and 86 %. Despite the excellent results in screening for trisomy 21, NIPT should not be considered as a diagnostic test. Due to the costs of NIPT, it is unlikely that NIPT will be applied in the near future in population-based screening for trisomy. In addition, the scope of the current approach in first trimester screening exceeds the screening for aneuploidy as it is possible to assess the risk for various pregnancy complications. Therefore, a combination of both NIPT and first trimester combined screening seems reasonable. Both examinations could be applied in a contingent model where the latter is offered to everyone and NIPT is restricted to women with an intermediate risk after first trimester combined screening. Such a policy would result in a detection rate of about 97 % for a false-positive rate of about 1 %. While NIPT currently focuses on screening for trisomy 21, 18, 13 and sex chromosomal abnormalities, the scope of NIPT will soon become broader. In this respect, some study groups have managed to examine the whole fetal genome within the course of the pregnancy. However, moral and ethical considerations need to be taken into account.