Background: Implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Down syndrome screening programmes requires health policy decisions about its combination with other tests and its timing in pregnancy. Aim: Our aim was to aid health policy decision makers by conducting a quantitative analysis of different NIPT implementation strategies. Methods: Decision trees were created to illustrate all plausible alternatives in a theoretical cohort of 100,000 pregnant women in five screening programmes: classical screening by the first-trimester combined test (FCT), pre-selection of high-risk women prior to NIPT by the FCT, NIPT as the first screening test at 10 weeks and at 13 weeks, and the simultaneous conductance of NIPT and the FCT. Results: Pre-selection by FCT prior to NIPT reduces the number of amniocenteses to a minimum because of a reduction of false-positive NIPT results. If NIPT is the first screening test, it detects almost all fetal Down syndrome cases. NIPT at 10 weeks reassures women early in pregnancy, while NIPT at 13 weeks prevents unnecessary tests due to spontaneous miscarriages and allows for immediate confirmation by amniocentesis. Conclusion: Every implementation strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. The most favourable implementation strategy may be NIPT as the first screening test at 13 weeks, offering the most accurate screening test for Down syndrome, when the risk for spontaneous miscarriage has declined remarkably and timely confirmation by amniocentesis can be performed.

Keywords:
Decision-analytic model, Down syndrome, Non-invasive prenatal testing, Prenatal screening
1.
Mersy E, Smits LJ, van Winden LA, de Die-Smulders CE; South-East Netherlands NIPT Consortium, Paulussen AD, Macville MV, Coumans AB, Frints SG: Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21: systematic review and report of quality and outcomes of diagnostic accuracy studies performed between 1997 and 2012. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:318-329.
2.
Morain S, Greene MF, Mello MM: A new era in noninvasive prenatal testing. N Engl J Med 2013;369:499-501.
3.
Bianchi DW, Wilkins-Haug L: Integration of noninvasive DNA testing for aneuploidy into prenatal care: what has happened since the rubber met the road? Clin Chem 2014;60:78-87.
4.
Hui L: Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: charting the course from clinical validity to clinical utility. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:2-6.
5.
Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH: Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:249-266.
6.
Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C, Das AF, Craig JA, Chudova DI, Devers PL, Jones KW, Oliver K, Rava RP, Sehnert AJ; CARE Study Group: DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370:799-808.
7.
Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, Tomlinson MW, Pereira L, Spitz JL, Hollemon D, Cuckle H, Musci TJ, Wapner RJ: Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-1597.
8.
Zhang H, Gao Y, Jiang F, Fu M, Yuan Y, Guo Y, Zhu Z, Lin M, Liu Q, Tian Z, Zhang H, Chen F, Lau TK, Zhao L, Yi X, Yin Y, Wang W: Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146 958 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:530-538.
9.
Benn P, Borrell A, Chiu R, Cuckle H, Dugoff L, Faas B, Gross S, Huang T, Johnson J, Maymon R, Norton M, Odibo A, Schielen P, Spencer K, Wright D, Yaron Y: Position Statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. http://www.ispdhome.org/ (accessed April 26, 2015).
10.
Futch T, Spinosa J, Bhatt S, de Feo E, Rava RP, Sehnert AJ: Initial clinical laboratory experience in noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy from maternal plasma DNA samples. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:569-574.
11.
Taylor JB, Chock VY, Hudgins L: NIPT in a clinical setting: an analysis of uptake in the first months of clinical availability. J Genet Couns 2014;23:72-78.
12.
Gil MM, Quezada MS, Bregant B, Ferraro M, Nicolaides KH: Implementation of maternal blood cell-free DNA testing in early screening for aneuploidies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:34-40.
13.
Song Y, Liu C, Qi H, Zhang Y, Bian X, Liu J: Noninvasive prenatal testing of fetal aneuploidies by massively parallel sequencing in a prospective Chinese population. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:700-706.
14.
Hui L, Hyett J: Noninvasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: challenges for implementation in Australia. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;53:416-424.
15.
van Schendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, Pajkrt E, Timmermans DR, Holtkamp KC, Karsten M, Vlietstra AL, Lachmeijer AM, Henneman L: Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:1345-1350.
16.
Hill M, Wright D, Daley R, Lewis C, McKay F, Mason S, Lench N, Howarth A, Boustred C, Lo K, Plagnol V, Spencer K, Fisher J, Kroese M, Morris S, Chitty LS: Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:229.
17.
de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Frints SG, de Die-Smulders CE, de Wert GM: Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for aneuploidy: toward an integral ethical assessment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2915-2917.
18.
Deans Z, Newson AJ: Ethical considerations for choosing between possible models for using NIPD for aneuploidy detection. J Med Ethics 2012;38:614-618.
19.
Song K, Musci TJ, Caughey AB: Clinical utility and costs of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26:1180-1185.
20.
Nicolaides KH, Wright D, Poon LC, Syngelaki A, Gil MM: First-trimester contingent screening for trisomy 21 by biomarkers and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:41-50.
21.
Cuckle H, Benn P, Pergament E: Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome - a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:636-642.
22.
Beulen L, Grutters JP, Faas BH, Feenstra I, van Vugt JM, Bekker MN: The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in Dutch national health care: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;182:53-61.
23.
Twiss P, Hill M, Daley R, Chitty LS: Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19:9-14.
24.
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.
25.
Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty LS: Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome: pregnant women's views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics 2013;16:223-232.
26.
Verweij EJ, Oepkes D, de Vries M, van den Akker ME, van den Akker ES, de Boer MA: Non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy 21: what women want and are willing to pay. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93:641-645.
27.
Benn P, Chapman AR, Erickson K, Defrancesco MS, Wilkins-Haug L, Egan JF, Schulkin J: Obstetricians and gynecologists' practice and opinions of expanded carrier testing and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:145-152.
28.
Aleem IS, Schemitsch EH, Hanson BP: What is a clinical decision analysis study? Indian J Orthop 2008;42:137-139.
29.
Hahnemann JM, Vejerslev LO: Accuracy of cytogenetic findings on chorionic villus sampling (CVS) - diagnostic consequences of CVS mosaicism and non-mosaic discrepancy in centres contributing to EUCROMIC 1986-1992. Prenat Diagn 1997;17:801-820.
30.
Seyller T: Simple decision tree. 2009. http://sites.google.com/site/simpledecisiontree/.
31.
Avalos LA, Galindo C, Li DK: A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012;94:417-423.
32.
Makrydimas G, Sebire NJ, Lolis D, Vlassis N, Nicolaides KH: Fetal loss following ultrasound diagnosis of a live fetus at 6-10 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:368-372.
33.
Tong S, Kaur A, Walker SP, Bryant V, Onwude JL, Permezel M: Miscarriage risk for asymptomatic women after a normal first-trimester prenatal visit. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:710-714.
34.
Bilardo CM, Timmerman E, Pajkrt E, van Maarle M: Increased nuchal translucency in euploid fetuses - what should we be telling the parents? Prenat Diagn 2010;30:93-102.
35.
Petersen OB, Vogel I, Ekelund C, Hyett J, Tabor A; Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group; Danish Clinical Genetics Study Group: Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43:265-271.
36.
Daley R, Hill M, Chitty LS: Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: progress and potential. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2014;99:F426-F430.
37.
Srinivasan A, Bianchi DW, Huang H, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP: Noninvasive detection of fetal subchromosome abnormalities via deep sequencing of maternal plasma. Am J Hum Genet 2013;92:167-176.
38.
Bunnik EM, de Jong A, Nijsingh N, de Wert GM: The new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy. Bioethics 2013;27:348-355.
39.
Loane M, Morris JK, Addor MC, Arriola L, Budd J, Doray B, Garne E, Gatt M, Haeusler M, Khoshnood B, Klungsøyr Melve K, Latos-Bielenska A, McDonnell B, Mullaney C, O'Mahony M, Queisser-Wahrendorf A, Rankin J, Rissmann A, Rounding C, Salvador J, Tucker D, Wellesley D, Yevtushok L, Dolk H: Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of Down syndrome and other trisomies in Europe: impact of maternal age and prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:27-33.
40.
Resta RG: Changing demographics of advanced maternal age (AMA) and the impact on the predicted incidence of Down syndrome in the United States: implications for prenatal screening and genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet A 2005;133A:31-36.
41.
Snijders RJ, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH: Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:167-170.
42.
Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A, Sahota D, Nicolaides KH: Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:618-624.
43.
Chetty S, Garabedian MJ, Norton ME: Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:542-546.
44.
Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z: Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:687-694.
45.
Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D'Antonio F: Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:16-26.
46.
Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM: Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery 2010;26:18-26.
47.
Odibo AO, Ghidini A: Role of the second-trimester ‘genetic sonogram' for Down syndrome screen in the era of first-trimester screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:511-517.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.