Objective: To assess how pregnant women choose between a non-invasive DNA test (NIDT) and an invasive prenatal test (IPD) based on the accuracy of the test. Materials and Methods: Pregnant women who attended for first-trimester combined screening assessment of risk of Down syndrome were invited to participate in an interviewer-administered survey. Women were asked to choose between NIDT (variable detection rate but no miscarriage risk) and IPD (∼100% detection rate but 0.5-1% miscarriage risk) if their screening test was positive for Down syndrome using the standard gamble technique. Results: 358 women were approached of which 106 (29.6%) were unwilling to participate in the study as it had already been decided in advance which additional test they would have if they were screened positive. Of these 106 women, 70 (19.6%) would only choose IPD whereas 36 (10%) would only choose NIDT. Among those who agreed to undertake the gamble and participate in the study (n = 252), 50% were willing to accept NIDT as an alternative to IPD provided that NIDT had a detection rate of 95%. Conclusion: The majority can accept NIDT as an alternative to IPD provided that the test is 95% accurate in the diagnosis of Down syndrome. Current evidence indicates that the detection rate of NIDT will be higher than this level. Health professionals should consider NIDT as an alternative to IPD when counseling women with a positive screening test.

Keywords:
Down syndrome, Non-invasive prenatal DNA diagnosis , Amniocentesis, Chorionic villus sampling, Standard gamble
1.
Nicolaides KH: Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:7-15.
2.
Kong CW, Leung TN, Leung TY, et al: Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:925-930.
3.
Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al: Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 1997;350:485-487.
4.
Ding C, Chiu RW, Lau TK, et al: MS analysis of single-nucleotide differences in circulating nucleic acids: application to noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101:10762-10767.
5.
Chiu RW, Akolekar R, Zheng YW, et al: Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. BMJ 2011;342:c7401.
6.
Palomaki GE, Deciu C, Kloza EM, et al: DNA sequencing of maternal plasma reliably identifies trisomy 18 and trisomy 13, as well as Down syndrome: an international collaborative study. Genet Med 2012;14:296-305.
7.
Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wagner M, Birdir C, Nicolaides KH: Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal plasma cell-free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:322.
8.
Sparks AB, Struble CA, Wang ET, Song K, Oliphant A: Noninvasive prenatal detection and selective analysis of cell-free DNA obtained from maternal blood: evaluation for trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:319.
9.
Lau TK, Chan MK, Lo PS, et al: Clinical utility of noninvasive fetal trisomy (NIFTY) test - early experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:1856-1859.
10.
Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, Morris S: Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med 2012;14:905-913.
11.
Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE: Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:511-516.
12.
Chan YM, Leung TN, Leung TY, Fung TY, Chan LW, Lau TK: The utility assessment of Chinese pregnant women towards the birth of a baby with Down syndrome compared to a procedure-related miscarriage. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:819-824.
13.
Froberg DG, Kane RL: Methodology for measuring health-state preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:459-471.
14.
Sahota DS, Leung WC, Chan WP, To WK, Lau ETY, Leung TY: Prospective assessment of the hospital authority universal Down syndrome screening programme. Hong Kong Med J 2013;19:101-108.
15.
Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S: Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2003;3:CD003252.
16.
Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Canick JA, et al: DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med 2011;13:913-920.
17.
Chan YM, Sahota DS, Chan OK, Leung TY, Lau TK: Miscarriage after invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: how much risk our pregnant women are willing to take? Prenat Diagn 2009;29:870-874.
18.
Tabor A, Vestergaard CH, Lidegaard Ø: Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:19-24.
19.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007: Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1459-1467.
20.
Chitty LS, Hill M, White H, Wright D, Morris S: Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy-ready for prime time? Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;206:269-275.
21.
Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E: Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: the paradigm will shift, but slowly. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:127-130.
22.
Benn P, Borrell A, Cuckle H, et al: Prenatal detection of Down syndrome using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): a rapid response statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, 24 October 2011. Prenat Diagn 2011;32:1-2.
23.
Mazloom AR, Džakula Z, Oeth P, Wang H, Jensen T, Tynan J, et al: Noninvasive prenatal detection of sex chromosomal aneuploidies by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from maternal plasma. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:591-597.
24.
Tischler R, Hudgins L, Blumenfeld YJ, Greely HT, Ormond KE: Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:1292-1299.
25.
Benn PA, Chapman AR: Practical and ethical considerations of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. JAMA 2009;301:2154-2156.
26.
Van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E, et al: Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Educ Couns 2010;78:24-28.
27.
Deans Z, Newson AJ: Should non-invasiveness change informed consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis? Health Care Anal 2011;19:122-123.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.