Home Impact of cell-free fetal DNA on invasive prenatal diagnostic tests in a real-world public setting
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Impact of cell-free fetal DNA on invasive prenatal diagnostic tests in a real-world public setting

  • Ignacio Herraiz ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Ana Villalba , Eliam Ajuria , Alba Barasoain , Ana Mendoza , Nazaret Pizarro , David Escribano and Alberto Galindo
Published/Copyright: March 8, 2019

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the impact of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) test on the number of invasive tests carried out in a public hospital that does not include this test in its services.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study in singleton pregnancies with a high risk (>1:270) on the first-trimester screening for aneuploidies. The options of performing an invasive test or a cfDNA test were explained to all women, the latter being especially recommended to those with a 1:50–1:270 risk (Group 1). If the risk was >1:50 (Group 2), or nuchal translucency (NT) was >99th percentile or there were major malformations (Group 3), invasive test was recommended.

Results

A total of 755 of 14,398 (5.2%) cases had a high-risk first-trimester screening, of whom 46 cases were excluded due to incomplete follow-up. In the remaining 709 cases, the percentage of aneuploidies was 9.9% (70 cases) and 110 opted for a cfDNA test (15.5%). There were two true-positive results of cfDNA (one in Group 2 and another in Group 3). In Group 1, 67.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.0%–72.1%, P < 0.01] fewer invasive procedures were performed in those who opted for a cfDNA test, without having false negatives.

Conclusion

Pregnant women with a 1:50–1:270 risk who opt for cfDNA save two out of three invasive tests, without affecting the aneuploidy detection rate.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Badeau M, Lindsay C, Blais J, Nshimyumukiza L, Takwoingi Y,Langlois S, et al. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;11:CD011767.10.1002/14651858.CD011767.pub2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

2. Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, Lewis C, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: a systematic review of Internet advertising to potential users by commercial companies and private health providers. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:1167–75.10.1002/pd.4673Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Santorum M, Wright D, Syngelaki A, Karagioti N, Nicolaides KH. Accuracy of first-trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49:714–20.10.1002/uog.17283Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;50:302–14.10.1002/uog.17484Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Kagan KO, Sonek J, Wagner P, Hoopmann M. Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;296:645–51.10.1007/s00404-017-4459-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:687–94.10.1097/01.AOG.0000278820.54029.e3Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Syngelaki A, Pergament E, Homfray T, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Replacing the combined test by cell-free DNA testing in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: impact on the diagnosis of other chromosomal abnormalities. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;35:174–84.10.1159/000358388Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Garfeld SS, Armstrong SO. Clinical and cost consequences of incorporating a novel non-invasive prenatal test into the diagnostic pathway for fetal trisomies. J Manag Care Med 2012;15:34–41.Search in Google Scholar

9. Ayres AC, Whitty JA, Ellwood DA. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;54:412–7.10.1111/ajo.12223Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Martínez-Payo C, Bada-Bosch I, Martínez-Moya M, Pérez-Medina T. Clinical results after the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA detection in maternal plasma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018;44:1369–76.10.1111/jog.13672Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. García-Pérez L, Linertová R, Álvarez-de-la-Rosa M, Bayón JC, Imaz-Iglesia I, Ferrer-Rodríguez J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ 2018;19:979–91.10.1007/s10198-017-0946-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Oepkes D, Bartha JL, Schmid M, Yaron Y. Benefits of contingent screening vs primary screening by cell-free DNA testing: think again. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47:542–5.10.1002/uog.15758Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2018-12-10
Accepted: 2019-01-31
Published Online: 2019-03-08
Published in Print: 2019-07-26

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM)
  4. Original Articles – Obstetrics
  5. The value of amniotic fluid analysis in patients with suspected clinical chorioamnionitis
  6. Patients with acute cervical insufficiency without intra-amniotic infection/inflammation treated with cerclage have a good prognosis
  7. Maternal serum endocan concentrations are elevated in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes
  8. The earlier the gestational age, the greater the intensity of the intra-amniotic inflammatory response in women with preterm premature rupture of membranes and amniotic fluid infection by Ureaplasma species
  9. Assessment of maternal GBS colonization and early-onset neonatal disease rate for term deliveries: a decade perspective
  10. Clinical importance of the 75-g glucose tolerance test (GTT) in the prediction of large for gestational age (LGA) fetuses in non-diabetic pregnancies
  11. Expression of genes involved in inflammation and growth – does sampling site in human full-term placenta matter?
  12. Impact of cell-free fetal DNA on invasive prenatal diagnostic tests in a real-world public setting
  13. Perinatal outcome in gestational diabetes according to different diagnostic criteria
  14. Original Articles – Fetus
  15. Change in fetal behavior in response to vibroacoustic stimulation
  16. Diagnostic accuracy of isolated clubfoot in twin compared to singleton gestations
  17. Original Article – Newborn
  18. Usefulness of transcutaneous bilirubin assessment measured in non-photo-exposed skin to guide the length of phototherapy: an observational study
  19. Letters to the Editor
  20. Methodological issues on the clinical importance of the 75-g glucose tolerance test (GTT) in the prediction of large for gestational age (LGA) fetuses in non-diabetic pregnancies
  21. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: methodological issues on the clinical importance of the 75-g glucose tolerance test (GTT) in the prediction of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) fetuses in non-diabetic pregnancies
Downloaded on 7.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2018-0410/html
Scroll to top button