Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(04): 470-477
DOI: 10.1055/a-1692-0309
Original Article

Determinant of Prenatal Diagnostic Testing among Women with Increased Risk of Fetal Aneuploidy and Genetic Disorders

Tamandra Morgan
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Catherine D. Tan
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
,
Micaela Della-Torre
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beacon Memorial Hospital, South Bend Indiana
,
Tia Jackson-Bey
4   Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
,
Laura DiGiovanni
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beacon Memorial Hospital, South Bend Indiana
,
Christopher A. Enakpene
5   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Permian Basin, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess factors that influence patients' decisions in accepting prenatal diagnostic testing following genetic counseling for increased risk of fetal aneuploidy.

Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of women at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy and genetic disorders who had genetic counseling from January 2012 to December 2016 at a single academic center. Demographics, indications for genetic counseling, and rates of diagnostic testing were collected and compared between those who accepted diagnostic testing and those who chose cell free DNA. The variables were analyzed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and multiple logistic regression.

Result Of the 2,373 pregnant women who underwent genetic counseling for increased risk of fetal aneuploidy and genetic disorders during the study period, 321 women had diagnostic testing (13.5%). Women at 35 years and older accepted diagnostic testing more than women younger than 35 years (20.7 vs. 11.5%, p < 0.001). Asian women accepted diagnostic testing at 27.7% more than white, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic women at 18.0, 12.1, and 11.7%, respectively, p = 0.002. Number of indications for genetic counseling influenced the likelihood of accepting diagnostic testing. Women with one indication had 11.5% acceptance of diagnostic testing, and with two and three indications, it was 17.0 and 29.2%, respectively. The commonest indication for diagnostic testing was cystic hygroma (risk ratio [RR] = 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.12–8.76 p < 0.001). The relative risk of diagnostic testing for fetuses with shortened long bones, femur and humerus, thickened nuchal fold, echogenic bowel, single umbilical artery, and increased nuchal translucency were 4.0, 3.3, 3.1, 2.7, and 2.7, respectively. Abnormal serum analyte alone was associated with less acceptance of diagnostic testing (RR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–0.96, p = 0.017).

Conclusion Age, race, ethnicity, and cumulative number of indications for genetic counseling influenced acceptance of diagnostic testing in at-risk women of fetal aneuploidy and genetic disorders.

Key Points

  • Genetic counseling.

  • Fetal aneuploidy.

  • Genetic disorders.

  • Prenatal diagnostic testing. Prenatal diagnostic testing in women with increased risk of fetal aneuploidy and genetic disorders.

Keywords

genetic counseling - fetal aneuploidy - genetic disorders - diagnostic testing


Publication History

Received: 31 January 2021

Accepted: 23 October 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
09 November 2021

Article published online:
17 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kochanek KD, Kirmeyer SE, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2009. Pediatrics 2012; 129 (02) 338-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Osterman MJK, Kochanek KD, MacDorman MF, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2012-2013. Pediatrics 2015; 135 (06) 1115-1125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van Schendel RV, van El CG, Pajkrt E, Henneman L, Cornel MC. Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 (01) 670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update on overall prevalence of major birth defects–Atlanta, Georgia, 1978-2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57 (01) 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nussbaum RL, McInnes RR, Willard HF. et al. Thompson & Thompson Genetics in Medicine. 7th ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Norton ME, Biggio JR, Kuller JA, Blackwell SC. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org The role of ultrasound in women who undergo cell-free DNA screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (03) B2-B7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hay SB, Sahoo T, Travis MK. et al. ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient?. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38 (03) 184-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG practice bulletin no. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (01) 217-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Raniga S, Desai PD, Parikh H. Ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy in second trimester: are we lost?. MedGenMed 2006; 8 (01) 9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nyberg DA, Souter VL, El-Bastawissi A, Young S, Luthhardt F, Luthy DA. Isolated sonographic markers for detection of fetal Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20 (10) 1053-1063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bromley B, Lieberman E, Shipp TD, Benacerraf BR. The genetic sonogram: a method of risk assessment for Down syndrome in the second trimester. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21 (10) 1087-1096 , quiz 1097–1098
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wilson KL, Czerwinski JL, Hoskovec JM. et al. NSGC practice guideline: prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. J Genet Couns 2013; 22 (01) 4-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kuppermann M, Gates E, Washington AE. Racial-ethnic differences in prenatal diagnostic test use and outcomes: preferences, socioeconomics, or patient knowledge?. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (5, pt. 1): 675-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kuppermann M, Learman LA, Gates E. et al. Beyond race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status: predictors of prenatal testing for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (05) 1087-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Leamen LA, Kuppermann M, Gates E, Nease Jr RF, Gildengorin V, Washington AE. Social and familial context of prenatal genetic testing decisions: are there racial/ethnic differences?. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2003; 119C (01) 19-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Saucier JB, Johnston D, Wicklund CA. et al. Racial-ethnic differences in genetic amniocentesis uptake. J Genet Couns 2005; 14 (03) 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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 (03) 302-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK. et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (17) 1589-1597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F. et al; ISUOG Clinical Standards Committee. ISUOG updated consensus statement on the impact of cfDNA aneuploidy testing on screening policies and prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49 (06) 815-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Committee opinion summary No. 640. Cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (03) 691-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Publications Committee. Electronic address: esteele@smfm.org. SMFM Statement: clarification of recommendations regarding cell-free DNA aneuploidy screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (06) 753-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rink BD, Norton ME. Screening for fetal aneuploidy. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40 (01) 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Committee on Practice Bulletin- Obstetrics Committee on Genetics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice bulletin No. 163. Screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (05) e123-e137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Simpson JL, Samango-Sprouse C. Prenatal diagnosis and 47,XXY. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2013; 163C (01) 64-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chasen ST, Skupski DW, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Prenatal informed consent for sonogram: the time for first-trimester nuchal translucency has come. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20 (11) 1147-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Melan V, Bussieres L, Winer N. et al. Effect of cell-free DNA screening versus direct invasive diagnosis on miscarriage rates in women with pregnancies at high risk of Trisomy 21: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 320 (06) 557-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Olivier G, Derniaux A, Alanio E. et al. Characteristics and outcome of fetal cystic hygroma diagnosed in the first trimester. Acta Obstet Gynecolo Scand 2007; 86 (12) 1442-1446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Norton ME, Rink BD. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40 (01) 56-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Carlson LM, Vora NL. Prenatal diagnosis: screening and diagnostic tools. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2017; 44 (02) 245-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hill M, Johnson JA, Langlois S. et al. Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals. Eur J Hum Genet 2016; 24 (07) 968-975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Ries-Levavi L, Pras E. Factors that affect the decision to undergo amniocentesis in women with normal Down syndrome screening results: it is all about the age. Health Expect 2015; 18 (06) 2306-2317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Chiang HH, Chao YM, Yuh YS. Informed choice of pregnant women in prenatal screening tests for Down's syndrome. J Med Ethics 2006; 32 (05) 273-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar