Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods

Objective: Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) is increasingly being implemented worldwide. In public health programs, equitable access to healthcare is a fundamental principle which also applies to fetal aneuploidy screening. However, the out-of-pocket costs of NIPT may lead to sociodemographic disparities in uptake of screening. This study assessed whether there is a difference in the uptake of NIPT in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to all other neighborhoods in the Netherlands, where NIPT is implemented in a national screening program (TRIDENT-2 study). Method: NIPT uptake, postal code and age of 156,562 pregnant women who received pre-test counselling for prenatal screening in 2018 were retrieved from the national prenatal screening database. Postal codes were used as a proxy to categorize neighborhoods as being either socioeconomically disadvantaged or other. The out-of-pocket costs for NIPT were €175. Results: NIPT uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods was 20.3% whereas uptake in all other neighborhoods was 47.6% (p < 0.001). The difference in NIPT uptake between socioeconomic disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas was smaller for the youngest maternal age-group (≤25 years) compared to other age-groups. Conclusion: The variation in uptake suggest underlying disparities in NIPT uptake, which undermines the goals of a national fetal aneuploidy screening program of providing reproductive autonomy and equitable access. This has ethical and policy implications for ensuring fair and responsible implementation of fetal aneuploidy screening

Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women’s perspectives

Due to the favorable test characteristics of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) in the screening of fetal aneuploidy, there has been a strong and growing demand for implementation. In the Netherlands, NIPT is offered within a governmentally supported screening program as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women (TRIDENT-2 study). However, concerns have been raised that the test’s favorable characteristics might lead to uncritical use, also referred to as routinization. This study addresses women’s perspectives on prenatal screening with NIPT by evaluating three aspects related to routinization: informed choice, freedom to choose and (personal and societal) perspectives on Down syndrome. Nationwide, a questionnaire was completed by 751 pregnant women after receiving counseling for prenatal screening. Of the respondents, the majority (75.5%) made an informed choice for prenatal screening as measured by the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Education level and religious affiliation were significant predictors of informed choice. The main reason to accept screening was “seeking reassurance” (25.5%), and the main reason to decline was “every child is welcome” (30.6%). The majority of respondents (87.7%) did not perceive societal pressure to test. Differences between test-acceptors and test-decliners in personal and societal perspectives on Down syndrome were found. Our study revealed high rates of informed decision-making and perceived freedom to choose regarding fetal aneuploidy screening, suggesting that there is little reason for concern about routinization of NIPT based on the perspectives of Dutch pregnant women. Our findings highlight the importance of responsible implementation of NIPT within a national screening program

Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). METHOD: A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious. RESULTS: Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were "I would never terminate my pregnancy" (57.1%) and "every child is welcome" (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy. CONCLUSION: The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women

Clinical impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing: Follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study

In the TRIDENT-2 study, all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (GW-NIPT) with a choice of receiving either full screening or screening solely for common trisomies. Previous data showed that GW-NIPT can reliably detect common trisomies in the general obstetric population and that this test can also detect other chromosomal abnormalities (additional findings). However, evidence regarding the clinical impact of screening for additional findings is lacking. Therefore, we present follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study to determine this clinical impact based on the laboratory and perinatal outcomes of cases with additional findings. Between April 2017 and April 2019, additional findings were detected in 402/110,739 pregnancies (0.36%). For 358 cases, the origin was proven to be either fetal (n = 79; 22.1%), (assumed) confined placental mosaicism (CPM) (n = 189; 52.8%), or maternal (n = 90; 25.1%). For the remaining 44 (10.9%), the origin of the aberration could not be determined. Most fetal chromosomal aberrations were pathogenic and associated with severe clinical phenotypes (61/79; 77.2%). For CPM cases, occurrence of pre-eclampsia (8.5% [16/189] vs 0.5% [754/159,924]; RR 18.5), and birth weight <2.3rd percentile (13.6% [24/177] vs 2.5% [3,892/155,491]; RR 5.5) were significantly increased compared to the general obstetric population. Of the 90 maternal findings, 12 (13.3%) were malignancies and 32 (35.6%) (mosaic) pathogenic copy number variants, mostly associated with mild or no clinical phenotypes. Data from this large cohort study provide crucial information for deciding if and how to implement GW-NIPT in screening programs. Additionally, these data can inform the challenging interpretation, counseling, and follow-up of additional findings

Trial by Dutch Laboratories for Evaluation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing.:Part II - Women's Perspectives

Contains fulltext : 171863.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences and decision-making among high-risk pregnant women offered a choice between Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), invasive testing or no further testing. METHODS: Nationwide implementation study (TRIDENT) offering NIPT as contingent screening test for women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined testing (>1:200) or medical history. A questionnaire was completed after counseling assessing knowledge, attitudes and participation following the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. RESULTS: A total of 1091/1253 (87%) women completed the questionnaire. Of these, 1053 (96.5%) underwent NIPT, 37 (3.4%) invasive testing and 1 (0.1%) declined testing. 91.7% preferred NIPT because of test safety. Overall, 77.9% made an informed choice, 89.8% had sufficient knowledge and 90.5% had positive attitudes towards NIPT. Women with intermediate (odds ratio (OR) = 3.51[1.70-7.22], p < 0.001) or high educational level (OR = 4.36[2.22-8.54], p < 0.001) and women with adequate health literacy (OR = 2.60[1.36-4.95], p = 0.004) were more likely to make an informed choice. Informed choice was associated with less decisional conflict and less anxiety (p < 0.001). Intention to terminate the pregnancy for Down syndrome was higher among women undergoing invasive testing (86.5%) compared to those undergoing NIPT (58.4%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women had sufficient knowledge and made an informed choice. Continuous attention for counseling is required, especially for low-educated and less health-literate women. (c) 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing.:Part I-clinical impact

textabstractObjective: To evaluate the clinical impact of nationwide implementation of genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in pregnancies at increased risk for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (TRIDENT study). Method: Women with elevated risk based on first trimester combined testing (FCT ≥ 1:200) or medical history, not advanced maternal age alone, were offered NIPT as contingent screening test, performed by Dutch University Medical laboratories. We analyzed uptake, test performance, redraw/failure rate, turn-around time and pregnancy outcome. Results: Between 1 April and 1 September 2014, 1413/23 232 (6%) women received a high-risk FCT result. Of these, 1211 (85.7%) chose NIPT. One hundred seventy-nine women had NIPT based on medical history. In total, 1386/1390 (99.7%) women received a result, 6 (0.4%) after redraw. Mean turn-around time was 14 days. Follow-up was available in 1376 (99.0%) pregnancies. NIPT correctly predicted 37/38 (97.4%) trisomies 21, 18 or 13 (29/30, 4/4 and 4/4 respectively); 5/1376 (0.4%) cases proved to be false positives: trisomies 21 (n = 2), 18 (n = 1) and 13 (n = 2). Estimated reduction in invasive testing was 62%. Conclusion: Introduction of NIPT in the Dutch National healthcare-funded Prenatal Screening Program resulted in high uptake and a vast reduction of invasive testing. Our study supports offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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

TRIDENT-2 : National Implementation of Genome-wide Non-invasive Prenatal Testing as a First-Tier Screening Test in the Netherlands

The Netherlands launched a nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier test offered to all pregnant women. This started on April 1, 2017 as the TRIDENT-2 study, licensed by the Dutch Ministry of Health. In the first year, NIPT was performed in 73,239 pregnancies (42% of all pregnancies), 7,239 (4%) chose first-trimester combined testing, and 54% did not participate. The number of trisomies 21 (239, 0.33%), 18 (49, 0.07%), and 13 (55, 0.08%) found in this study is comparable to earlier studies, but the Positive Predictive Values (PPV)—96% for trisomy 21, 98% for trisomy 18, and 53% for trisomy 13—were higher than expected. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 were reported on request of the pregnant women; 78% of women chose to have these reported. The number of additional findings was 207 (0.36%); these included other trisomies (101, 0.18%, PPV 6%, many of the remaining 94% of cases are likely confined placental mosaics and possibly clinically significant), structural chromosomal aberrations (95, 0.16%, PPV 32%,) and complex abnormal profiles indicative of maternal malignancies (11, 0.02%, PPV 64%). The implementation of genome-wide NIPT is under debate because the benefits of detecting other fetal chromosomal aberrations must be balanced against the risks of discordant positives, parental anxiety, and a potential increase in (invasive) diagnostic procedures. Our first-year data, including clinical data and laboratory follow-up data, will fuel this debate. Furthermore, we describe how NIPT can successfully be embedded into a national screening program with a single chain for prenatal care including counseling, testing, and follow-up

Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods

Objective: Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) is increasingly being implemented worldwide. In public health programs, equitable access to healthcare is a fundamental principle which also applies to fetal aneuploidy screening. However, the out-of-pocket costs of NIPT may lead to sociodemographic disparities in uptake of screening. This study assessed whether there is a difference in the uptake of NIPT in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to all other neighborhoods in the Netherlands, where NIPT is implemented in a national screening program (TRIDENT-2 study). Method: NIPT uptake, postal code and age of 156,562 pregnant women

Clinical outcomes of screen-positive genome-wide cfDNA cases for trisomy 20: results from the global expanded NIPT Consortium

Abstract Trisomy 20 has been shown to be one of the most frequent rare autosomal trisomies in patients that undergo genome-wide noninvasive prenatal testing. Here, we describe the clinical outcomes of cases that screened positive for trisomy 20 following prenatal genome-wide cell-free (cf.) DNA screening. These cases are part of a larger cohort of previously published cases. Members of the Global Expanded NIPT Consortium were invited to submit details on their cases with a single rare autosomal aneuploidy following genome-wide cfDNA screening for retrospective analysis. Clinical details including patient demographics, test indications, diagnostic testing, and obstetric pregnancy outcomes were collected. Genome-wide cfDNA screening was conducted following site-specific laboratory procedures. Cases which screened positive for trisomy 20 (n = 10) were reviewed. Clinical outcome information was available for 90% (9/10) of our screen-positive trisomy 20 cases; the case without diagnostic testing ended in a fetal demise. Of the nine cases with outcome information, one was found to have a mosaic partial duplication (duplication at 20p13), rather than a full trisomy 20. Only one case in the study cohort had placental testing; therefore, confined placental mosaicism could not be ruled out in most cases. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were seen in half of the cases, which could suggest the presence of underlying confined placental mosaicism or mosaic/full fetal trisomy 20. Based on our limited series, the likelihood of true fetal aneuploidy is low but pregnancies may be at increased risk for adverse obstetric outcomes and may benefit from additional surveillance