Changing Face of Invasive Diagnostic Testing in the Era of Cell-Free DNA
31 May 2017
08 June 2017
17 July 2017 (eFirst)
Background Screening for fetal chromosomal anomalies using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) became clinically available in 2012. Since then, it has been widely adopted by providers and pregnant women with or without risk factors for aneuploidy. Concomitantly, the use of invasive diagnostic testing has been steadily declining.
Objective To determine the magnitude of decline and changes in indications for invasive prenatal testing over the past 6 years.
Study Design This was an institutional review board (IRB) approved retrospective cohort study that included women who were referred to our genetic division for consultation between January 2010 and December 2015 and decided to have invasive testing. The total number of patients choosing either option was determined for each year over the entire period and grouped by following indications: advanced maternal age, abnormal maternal serum screening (MS), abnormal ultrasound finding (US), personal or family history of genetic anomaly (FH), and others. Patients, who were advanced maternal age (AMA), were offered noninvasive prenatal screening or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis in addition to routine nuchal translucency screening. The proportion of AMA patients choosing each of the three options was determined in a 6-month interval over the entire study period. Statistical analysis included logistic regression and chi-square test.
Results While the number of patients receiving genetic counseling at our unit remained unchanged over the study period, the number of invasive procedures declined steadily from 429 amniocentesis (amnio) and 154 CVS in 2010 to 72 amnio and 60 CVS in 2015 (p < 0.001). Over the same period, the distribution of indications for diagnostic testing changed significantly. The proportion of procedures performed due to AMA or MS declined significantly over time (p < 0.001). The proportion of procedures performed for AMA declined at an average yearly rate of 24% (95% CI: 19–29%) and those performed for MS declined at a yearly rate of 13% (95% CI: 6–20%). Over the same period, the proportion of procedures performed due to US, FH, and other indications combined increased (p < 0.001) at an average rate of 45% (95% CI: 36–55%). A total of 5,188 women (61% of the study cohort) had genetic counseling for AMA. The percentage of patients opting for invasive procedures with AMA as the sole indication declined significantly from 38% in 2010 to 2% in 2015 (p < 0.0001) at an average rate of 29% (95% CI: 27–31%) reduction every 6 months. The rate of AMA women opting for cf DNA increased precipitously from 28% in 2012 to 91% in 2015 (p < 0.0001) at an average rate of 66% increase (95% CI: 57–76%) every 6 months.
Conclusion The use of invasive procedures to diagnose chromosomal and genetic anomalies has declined over the past years, primarily due to the availability of cfDNA testing for AMA and abnormal serum screening. The new reality is that fewer women opt for invasive procedures and do so primarily following abnormal ultrasound findings or due to a history of chromosomal or genetic anomalies. Given these trends, it is likely that future generations of maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialists will not have the opportunity to acquire the necessary skills to perform these procedures, when needed.
The usage and indications for invasive prenatal testing have changed since the introduction of cell-free DNA testing.
This abstract was presented at the 37th Annual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society of Maternal–Fetal Medicine (SMFM, poster # 200).
- 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics; Committee on Genetics; Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 162: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. 2016; 127 (05) e108-e122
- 2 Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Committee on Genetics, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 163: screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (05) e123-e137
- 3 Norton ME, Rink BD. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40 (01) 56-66
- 4 Khalifeh A, Weiner S, Berghella V, Donnenfeld A. Trends in invasive prenatal diagnosis: effect of sequential screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Fetal Diagn Ther 2016; 39 (04) 292-296
- 5 Chetty S, Garabedian MJ, Norton ME. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33 (06) 542-546
- 6 Friel LA, Czerwinski JL, Singletary CN. The impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on the practice of maternal-fetal medicine. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (09) 759-764
- 7 Meng J, Matarese C, Crivello J. , et al. Changes in and efficacies of indications for invasive prenatal diagnosis of cytogenomic abnormalities: 13 years of experience in a single center. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 1942-1948
- 8 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 (01) 16-26
- 9 Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM, Stamilio DM, Macones GA, Crane JP. Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: a single center's 16-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (03) 589-595
- 10 Caughey AB, Hopkins LM, Norton ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (3, Pt 1): 612-616
- 11 Odibo AO, Dicke JM, Gray DL. , et al. Evaluating the rate and risk factors for fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (04) 813-819
- 12 Lo YM, Lun FM, Chan KC. , et al. Digital PCR for the molecular detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104 (32) 13116-13121
- 13 Fan HC, Blumenfeld YJ, Chitkara U, Hudgins L, Quake SR. Noninvasive diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy by shotgun sequencing DNA from maternal blood. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008; 105 (42) 16266-16271
- 14 Chiu RW, Chan KC, Gao Y. , et al. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008; 105 (51) 20458-20463
- 15 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 (03) 296-305
- 16 Alberry MS, Maddocks DG, Hadi MA. , et al. Quantification of cell free fetal DNA in maternal plasma in normal pregnancies and in pregnancies with placental dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (01) 98.e1-98.e6
- 17 Warsof SL, Larion S, Abuhamad AZ. Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35 (10) 972-979
- 18 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Publications Committee. No. 36: prenatal aneuploidy screening using cell free DNA. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (06) 711-716
- 19 Rink BD, Norton ME. Screening for fetal aneuploidy. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40 (01) 35-43
- 20 Committee opinion no. 640: cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (03) e31-e37
- 21 Lo KK, Karampetsou E, Boustred C. , et al. Limited clinical utility of non-invasive prenatal testing for subchromosomal abnormalities. Am J Hum Genet 2016; 98 (01) 34-44
- 22 Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL. , et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016; 18 (10) 1056-1065
- 23 Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B. , et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (23) 2175-2184