Prenatal testing in the genomic age: Clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 126, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 737-746

  Kaimal, Anjali J ^a   Norton, Mary E ^a   Kuppermann, Miriam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA SCREENING; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; ANEUPLOIDY; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; GENOMICS; PREGNANCY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; BIOMARKERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DNA COPY NUMBER VARIATIONS; FEMALE; GENOMICS; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942785233     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001029     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Norton ME, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ. Chromosome abnormalities detected by current prenatal screening and non-invasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:979-86.
2. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninva-sive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97.
3. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyp-ing for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2175-84.
4. Hillman SC, Mcmullan DJ, Williams D, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Microarray comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:385-91.
5. The use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Committee Opinion No. 581. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122: 1374-7.
6. 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.
7. Ayres AC, Whitty JA, Ellwood DA. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;54:412-7.
8. Okun N, Teitelbaum M, Huang T, Dewa CS, Hoch JS. The price of performance: a cost and performance analysis of the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for Down syndrome in Ontario, Canada. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:350-6.
9. Walker BS, Jackson BR, LaGrave D, Ashwood ER, Schmidt RL. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:440-6.
10. Neyt M, Hulstaert F, Gyselaers W. Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005922.
11. Currier R, Wu N, Van Meter K, Goldman S, Lorey F, Flessel M. Integrated and first trimester prenatal screening in California: program implementation and patient choice for follow-up services. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:1077-83.
12. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C, Das AF, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370:799-808.
13. California prenatal screening program provider handbook. Available at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/pns/Documents/ProviderHandbook2009WEB.pdf. Retrieved November 12, 2014.
14. Hook EB. Rates of chromosome abnormalities at different maternal ages. Obstet Gynecol 1981;58:282-5.
15. Gravholt CH, Juul S, Naeraa RW, Hansen J. Prenatal and postnatal prevalence of Turner's syndrome: a registry study. BMJ 1996;312:16-21.
16. Snijders RJ, Sebire NJ, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age and gestational age-specific risk for chromosomal defects. Fetal Diagn Ther 1995;10:356-67.
17. Snijders RJ, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age-and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:167-70.
18. Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, Togneri FS, James N, Maher EJ, et al. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:610-20.
19. Forabosco A, Percesepe A, Santucci S. Incidence of non-age-dependent chromosomal abnormalities: a population-based study on 88965 amniocenteses. Eur J Hum Genet 2009;17: 897-903.
20. Gil MM, Akolekar R Quezada MS, Bregant B, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: meta-analysis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;35:156-73.
21. Lippman A, Tomkins DJ, Shime J, Hamerton JL. Canadian multicentre randomized clinical trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. Final report. Prenat Diagn 1992;12:385-408.
22. Winsor EJ, Tomkins DJ, Kalousek D, Farrell S, Wyatt P, Fan YS, et al. Cytogenetic aspects of the Canadian early and mid-trimester amniotic fluid trial (CEMAT). Prenat Diagn 1999;19:620-7.
23. Pergament E, Cuckle H, Zimmermann B, Banjevic M, Sigurjonsson S, Ryan A, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening in a high-risk and low-risk cohort. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124: 210-8.
24. Porreco RP, Garite TJ, Maurel K Marusiak B; Obstetrix Collaborative Research Network, Ehrich M, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomies 21, 18, 13 and the common sex chromosome aneuploidies from maternal blood using massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211:365.e1-12.
25. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP, et al. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:890-901.
26. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, Karimi A, Laurent LC, Caughey AB, et al. Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation (NICE) Study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:137.e1-8.
27. Ehrich M, Deciu C, Zwiefelhofer T, Tynan JA, Cagasan L, Tim R et al. Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 by sequencing of DNA in maternal blood: a study in a clinical setting. AmJ Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:205.e1-11.
28. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1-30.
29. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972;7:118-33.
30. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness-the curious resilience of the $50, 000-per-QALY threshold. N EnglJ Med 2014;371:796-7.
31. Samango-Sprouse C, Banjevic M, Ryan A, Sigurjonsson S, Zimmermann B, Hill M, et al. SNP-based non-invasive prenatal testing detects sex chromosome aneuploidies with high accuracy. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:643-9.
32. Chetty S, Garabedian MJ, Norton ME. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:542-6.
33. Nicolaides KH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Avgidou K, Papageorghiou A. Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making by pregnant women about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment of risk for trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193: 322-6.
34. Crider KS, Olney RS, Cragan JD. Trisomies 13 and 18: population prevalences, characteristics, and prenatal diagnosis, metropolitan Atlanta, 1994-2003. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146A:820-6.
35. Irving C, Richmond S, Wren C, Longster C, Embleton ND. Changes in fetal prevalence and outcome for trisomies 13 and 18: a population-based study over 23 years. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:137-41.
36. Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, Rickard R, Wang Y, Meyer RE, et al. Updated National Birth Prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010; 88:1008-16.
37. Natoli JL, Ackerman DL, McDermott S, Edwards JG. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995-2011). Prenat Diagn 2012;32: 142-53.
38. Forrester MB, Merz RD. Pregnancy outcome and prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome abnormalities in Hawaii, 1986-1999. Am J Med Genet A 2003;119A:305-10.
39. Jeon KC, Chen LS, Goodson P. Decision to abort after a prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome abnormality: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 2012;14:27-38.
40. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1459-67.
41. Morris JK, Savva GM. The risk of fetal loss following a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or trisomy 18. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:827-32.
42. Rankin J, Tennant PWG, Bythell M, Pearce MS. Predictors of survival in children born with Down syndrome: a registry-based study. Pediatrics 2012;129:e1373-81.
43. Cohen-Overbeek TE, Hop WC, den Ouden M, Pijpers L, Jahoda MG, Wladimiroff JW. Spontaneous abortion rate and advanced maternal age: consequences for prenatal diagnosis. Lancet 1990;336:27-9.
44. Leridon H. Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1548-53.
45. Roberts SC, Gould H, Kimport K, Weitz TA, Foster DG. Out-of-pocket costs, insurance coverage for abortion in the United States. Womens Health Issues 2014;24:e211-8.
46. The cost of having a baby in the United States. Available at: http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cost-of-Having-a-Baby1.pdf. Retrieved November 11, 2014.