What Is “NIPT”? Divergent Characterizations of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Strategies

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 54-67

  Vanstone, Meredith ^a   Yacoub, Karima ^b   Winsor, Shawn ^c   Giacomini, Mita ^a   Nisker, Jeff ^d  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

ethics; noninvasive prenatal testing; prenatal diagnosis; prenatal screening; qualitative content analysis; technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924425628     PISSN: 23294515     EISSN: 23294523     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2014.993102     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Allyse, M. A., L. C. Sayres, M. Havard, et al. 2013. Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis 33(7): 656–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4144
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2012. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Committee opinion no. 545. Obstetrics and Gynecology 120(6): 1532–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000423819.85283.f4
3. Ariosa Diagnostics. 2013a. Harmony prenatal test: A simple, safe blood test that offers highly sensitive results. San Jose, CA: Ariosa Diagnostics. [Patient brochure downloaded from ariosadx.com on January 13, 2014; it has since been removed from the website.]
4. Ariosa Diagnostics. 2013b. Harmony prenatal test: An advanced blood test to assess the risk of fetal trisomies and evaluate the X and Y chromosomes. San Jose, CA: Ariosa Diagnostics. [Provider brochure downloaded from arisosadx.com on January 21, 2014 it has since been removed from the website.]
5. Atkinson, P., and A. Coffey. 2010. Analysing documentary realities. In Qualitative research, ed. D. Silverman, 77–92. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6. Benn, P. A., and A. R. Chapman. 2009. Practical and ethical considerations of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 301(20): 2154–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.707
7. Benn, P., A. Borell, R. Chiu, et al. 2013. Position statement from the aneuploidy screening committee on behalf of the board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Prenatal Diagnosis. Available at: http://www.ispdhome.org/public/news/2013/PositionStatementAneuploidy4apr2013.pdf
8. Berry Genomics. 2013. BambniTest: A non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies [sic]. Available at http://www.berrygenomics.com/En/product/dzp.aspx?fid=73 (accessed January31, 2014).
9. BGI Health. 2014a. Patients. Available at http://en.bgi-health.com/our-tests/genetic-testing-for-reproductive-health/nifty/patients (accessed January31, 2014; no longer active).
10. BGI Health. 2014b. Physicians. Available from http://en.bgi-health.com/our-tests/genetic-testing-for-reproductive-health/nifty/physicians (accessed January31, 2014; no longer active).
11. Bianchi, D. W., T. Mieghem, L. G. Shaffer, et al. 2014. In case you missed it: The Prenatal Diagnosis section editors bring you the most significant advances of 2013. Prenatal Diagnosis 34(1):1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4288
12. Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes, T. Pinch, and D. G. Douglas. 2012. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Pine Forge Press.
14. Chitty, L., and J. Crolla. 2009. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free DNA in maternal blood. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Scientific impact paper 15. Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/SIP_No_15.pdf
15. Chitty, L. S, M. Hill, H. White, D. Wright, and S. Morris. 2012. Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy—Ready for prime time? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 206(4): 269–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.021
16. Clausen, C., and Y. Yoshinaka. 2004. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis & Praxis 2(2–3): 221–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0046-1
17. de Jong, A., W. J. Dondorp, C. E. M. de Die-Smulders, S. G. M. Frints, and G. M. W. R. de Wert. 2009. Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethical issues explored. European Journal of Human Genetics 18(3): 272–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2009.203
18. Deans, Z., and A. J. Newson. 2012. Ethical considerations for choosing between possible models for using NIPD for aneuploidy detection. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(10): 614–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100180
19. Devers, P. L., A. Cronister, K. E. Ormond, F. Facio, C. K. Brasington, and P. Flodman. 2013. Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: The position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling 22(3): 291–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9564-0
20. Fan, H. C., W. Gu, J. Wang, Y. J. Blumenfeld, Y. Y. El-Sayed, and S. R. Quake. 2012. Non-invasive prenatal measurement of the fetal genome. Nature 487(7407): 320–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11251
21. Forman, J., and L. Damschroder. 2008. Qualitative content analysis. In Empirical research for bioethics: A primer, Vol. 11, ed. L. Jacoby and L. A. Siminoff, 39–62. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
22. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23. Giacomini, M. K. 1999. The which-hunt: Assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 24(4): 715–58.
24. Giacomini, M., S. Winsor, and J. Abelson. 2013. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthcare Management Forum 26(2):72–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hcmf.2013.04.004
25. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, M. C., M. Garcia-Hoyos, M. J. Trujillo, et al. 2002. Prenatal detection of a cystic fibrosis mutation in fetal DNA from maternal plasma. Prenatal Diagnosis 22(10): 946–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.439
26. Gregg, A. R., S. J. Gross, R. G. Best, et al. 2013. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine 15(5): 395–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.29
27. Heath, C., P. Luff, and M. Sanchez Svensson. 2003. Technology and medical practice. Sociology of Health and Illness 25(3): 75–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00341
28. Heitman, E. 1998. Ethical issues in technology assessment: Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 14(3): 544–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300011521
29. Hill, M., A. N. Barrett, H. White, and L. S. Chitty. 2012. Uses of cell free fetal DNA in maternal circulation. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 26(5): 639–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.03.004
30. Hill, M., J. Fisher, L. S. Chitty, and S. Morris. 2012. 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. Genetics in Medicine 14(11): 905–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.68
31. Hodder, I. 2003. The interpretation of documents and material culture. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.), ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 155–75. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Hughes, T. 2012. The evolution of large technological systems. In The social construction of technological systems, ed. W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 45–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Hui, L., and D. W. Bianchi. 2013. Recent advances in the prenatal interrogation of the human fetal genome. Trends in Genetics. 29(2): 84–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.10.013
34. Illumina. 2014a. Expectant parents. Available at: http://www.verifitest.com/expectant-parents (accessed January31, 2014).
35. Illumina. 2014b. Healthcare professionals: Verifi prenatal test. Available at: http://www.verifitest.com/healthcare-professionals (accessed March13, 2014).
36. Kaposy, C. 2013. A disability critique of the new prenatal test for Down syndrome. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23(4): 299–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ken.2013.0017
37. Langlois, S., and J. A. Brock. 2013. Current status in non-invasive prenatal detection of Down syndrome, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 35(2): 177–81.
38. Lawson, K. L., K. Carlson, and J. M. Shynkaruk. 2012. The portrayal of Down syndrome in prenatal screening information pamphlets. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 34(8): 760–8.
39. Lehoux, Pascale. 2006. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York, NY: Routledge.
40. Lehoux, P., and S. Blume. 2000. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 25(6): 1083–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083
41. Levin, L., R. Goeree, N. Sikich, et al. 2007. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23(3): 299–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462307070456
42. Lewis, C., M. Hill, C. Silcock, R. Daley, and L. S. Chitty. 2014. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: A cross-sectional survey of service users' views and likely uptake. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 121(5): 582–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12579
43. Li, Y., G.C.M. L. Page-Christiaens, J. J. P. Gille, W. Holzgreve, and S. Hahn. 2007. Non-invasive prenatal detection of achondroplasia in size-fractionated cell-free DNA by MALDI-TOF MS assay. Prenatal Diagnosis 27(1): 11–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.1608
44. Lifecodexx. 2013a. PraenaTest: Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies. Konstanz, Germany: Lifecodexx. Available at: http://lifecodexx.com/fileadmin/lifecodexx/pdf/Patientenbroschuere_2013/WM-1081-EN-001_PraenaTest_patients_brochure_onlineversion.pdf (accessed September15, 2014).
45. Lifecodexx. 2013b. PraenaTest: The non-invasive molecular genetic prenatal test for fetal trisomy 13, 18 and 21 using next generation sequencing and z-score calculation following DNA isolation from maternal plasma. Konstanz, Germany: LifeCodexx. Available at: http://lifecodexx.com/fileadmin/lifecodexx/pdf/Monografie_2013/WM-1020-EN-003_PrenaTest_information_for_health_care_professionals_SCREEN.pdf (accessed September15, 2014).
46. May, C. 2006. Mobilising modern facts: Health technology assessment and the politics of evidence. Sociology of Health and Illness 28(5): 513–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00505.x
47. Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2013. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48. Miller, F. A, and K. Alvarado. 2005. Incorporating documents into qualitative nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37(4): 348–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00060.x
49. Nasis, O., S. Thompson, T. Hong, et al. 2004. Improvement in sensitivity of allele-specific PCR facilitates reliable noninvasive prenatal detection of cystic fibrosis. Clinical Chemistry 50(4): 694–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2003.025981
50. Natera, Inc. 2013. Panorama prenatal test. San Carlos, CA: Natera. [Pamphlet retrieved from panoramatest.com on January 23, 2014; it has since been removed from the website.]
51. Natera, Inc. 2014. Welcome to Panorama: The most accurate non-invasive prenatal testing available. Available at: http://www.panoramatest.com/welcome_clinicians (accessed January31, 2014).
52. Oudshoorn, N., and T. Pinch. 2005. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. Parens, E., and A. Asch. 2000. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
54. Pinch, T. J, and W. E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.” In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, eds. W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch, 17–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Prior, L. 2003. Using documents in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
56. Rapp, R. 1999. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York, NY: Routledge.
57. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2010. Prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities. C-Obs 35. Available at: https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/college-statements-guidelines.html#obstetrics (accessed March2013).
58. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2013. College communique: Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy, Media Statement, last updated June 26, 2013. Available at: http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/news/1152-noninvasive-prenatal-testing-for-fetal-aneuploidy.html
59. Russell, S., and R. Williams. 2002. Social shaping of technology: Frameworks, findings and implications for policy with glossary of social shaping concepts. In Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, apaces and tools, ed. K. H. Sorenson and R. Williams, 37–132. NorthamptonMA: Edward Elgar.
60. Saito, H., A. Sekizawa, T. Morimoto, M. Suzuki, and T.Yanaihara. 2000. Prenatal DNA diagnosis of a single-gene disorder from maternal plasma. Lancet 356(9236): 1170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02767-7
61. Saker, A., A. Benachi, J. P. Bonnefont, et al. 2006. Genetic characterisation of circulating fetal cells allows non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. Prenatal Diagnosis 26(10): 906–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.1524
62. Sayres, L. C., M. Allyse, and M. K. Cho. 2012. Integrating stakeholder perspectives into the translation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for aneuploidy. Genome Medicine 4(6): 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/gm348
63. Sayres, L. C., M. Allyse, M. E. Norton, and M. K. Cho. 2011. Cell‐free fetal DNA testing: A pilot study of obstetric healthcare provider attitudes toward clinical implementation. Prenatal Diagnosis 31(11): 1070–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.2835
64. Schmitz, D. 2013. A new era in prenatal testing: Are we prepared? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16(3): 357–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-012-9411-y
65. Schmitz, D., C. Netzer, and W. Henn. 2009. An offer you can't refuse? Ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(8): 515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg2631
66. Sequenom Laboratories. 2013a. MaterniT21 Plus: Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. San Diego, CA: Sequenom Laboratories. Available at: http://sequenom.uberflip.com/i/221970 (accessed September15, 2014).
67. Sequenom Laboratories. 2013b. The science of revolutionizing prenatal care. San Diego, CA: Sequenom Laboratories. Available at: http://flipbooks.sequenom.com/i/356729 (accessed September15, 2014).
68. Silcock, C., L. M. Liao, M. Hill, and L. S. Chitty. 2014. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome undermine informed choice? Health Expectations. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12159
69. Soothill, P. W., and Y. M. D. Lo. 2014. Non-invasive prenatal testing for chromosomal abnormality using maternal plasma DNA. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Scientific impact paper no. 15. Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk/noninvasive-prenantal-diagnosis-using-cell-free-dna-maternal-blood
70. Transparency Market Research. 2014. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) market expected to reach USD 3.62 billion globally in 2019. PR Newswire, January 6. Available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/non-invasive-prenatal-testing-nipt-market-expected-to-reach-usd-362-billion-globally-in-2019-transparency-market-research-238824411.html
71. Tremain, S. 2005. Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
72. Vanstone, M., C. King, B. de Vrijer, and J. Nisker. 2014. Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethics and policy considerations. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 36(6): 515–26.
73. Vanstone, M., E. A. Kinsella, and J. Nisker. 2014. Diseases, defects, abnormalities and conditions: Discursive tensions in prenatal screening. In Reframing reproduction, ed. M. Nash, 54–68. Melbourne, Australia: Palgrave-MacMillan.
74. Vanstone, M., and E. A. Kinsella. 2010. Critical reflection and prenatal screening public education materials: A metaphoric textual analysis. Reflective Practice 11(4): 451–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2010.505712
75. Wajcman, J. 2010. Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1): 143–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057
76. Williams, R., and D. Edge. 1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25(6): 865–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2
77. Yi, H., N. Hallowell, S. Griffiths, and T. Y. Leung. 2013. Motivations for undertaking DNA sequencing-based non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: A qualitative study with early adopter patients in Hong Kong. Plos ONE 8(11): e81794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081794