19 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    Objective: 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

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Get PDF
    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
    corecore