Corrigenda: Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: Challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening (European Journal of Human Genetics (2015) 23 (1438-1450) DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.57);Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: Challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 23, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1438-1450

  Dondorp, Wybo ^a   De Wert, Guido ^a   Bombard, Yvonne ^b   Bianchi, Diana W ^c   Bergmann, Carsten ^d,e   Borry, Pascal ^f   Chitty, Lyn S ^g   Fellmann, Florence ^h   Forzano, Francesca ⁱ   Hall, Alison ^j   Henneman, Lidewij ^k   Howard, Heidi C ^l   Lucassen, Anneke ^m   Ormond, Kelly ⁿ   Peterlin, Borut ^o   Radojkovic, Dragica ^p   Rogowski, Wolf ^q   Soller, Maria ^r   Tibben, Aad ^s   Tranebj'rg, Lisbeth ^t,u   Van El, Carla G ^k   Cornel, Martina C ^k   more..

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Bioscientia Center for Human Genetics   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^g GREAT ORMOND STREET HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^h LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

ⁱ GALLIERA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^j PHG FOUNDATION   (United Kingdom)

^k VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^l UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^m UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^p UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

^q INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^r Lund University   (Sweden)

^s LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^t BISPEBJERG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^u UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CHROMOSOME DELETION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FETUS DISEASE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEX DETERMINATION; STANDARD; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETICS; PREGNANCY; TRISOMY;

ANEUPLOIDY; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; TRISOMY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84944352609     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.109     Document Type: Erratum

References (134)

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics: Committee Opinion No. 545: Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1532-1534.
2. Benn P, Borrell A, Cuckle H, et al. Prenatal detection of Down Syndrome using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): a rapid response statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the InteRNAtional Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, 24 October 2011. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 32: 1-2.
3. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG, et al. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med. 2013; 15: 395-398.
4. Langlois S, Brock JA, Wilson RD, et al. Current status in non-invasive prenatal detection of down syndrome, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13 using cell-free DNA in mateRNAl plasma. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013; 35: 177-181.
5. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Chromosomal Abnormality using MateRNAl Plasma DNA. Scientific Impact Paper No 15. March 2014. Available at. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/.sip-15-04032014.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2014
6. Devers PL, Cronister A, Ormond KE, Facio F, Brasington CK, Flodman P. Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: the position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2013; 22: 291-295.
7. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, Kagan KO, Yeo G, Raine-Fenning NISUOG Clinical Standards Committee: ISUOG consensus statement on the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 122-123.
8. De Jong A, Dondorp WJ, de Die-Smulders CE, Frints SG, de Wert GM. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010; 18: 272-277.
9. Donley G, Hull SC, Berkman BE. Prenatal whole genome sequencing: just because we can, should we? Hastings Cent Rep. 2012; 42: 28-40.
10. Newson AJ. Ethical aspects arising from non-invasive fetal diagnosis. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008; 13: 103-108.
11. Schmitz D, Netzer C, Henn W. An offer you can't refuse? Ethical implications of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet. 2009; 10: 515.
12. Vanstone M, King C, de Vrijer B, Nisker J. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethics and policy considerations. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014; 36: 515-526.
13. Comité Consultatif National d'éthique (CCNE). Questions ethiques associees au developpement des tests genetiques foetaux sur sang maternel. Paris, CCNE, 2013. Available at. http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/fr/publications/questions-ethiques-Associees-Audeveloppement-des-Tests-genetiques-foetaux-sur-sang#.VBE6h2NQR8w (last accessed 22 December 2014
14. Hall A, Bostanci A, John S. Ethical, legal and social issues arising from cell-free fetal DNA technologies. Appendix III to the report: Cell-free fetal nucleic acids for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Cambridge: PHG Foundation, 2009. Available at. http://www.phgfoundation.org/download/ffDNA/ffDNA-appendix.pdf (last accessed 22 December 2014
15. Health Council of the Netherlands. NIPT: dynamics and ethics of prenatal screening. The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 2013 [Dutch; summary in English]. Available at. http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/en/publications/preventie/nipt-dynamicsand-ethics-of-prenatal-screening (last accessed 22 December 2014
16. Deans Z, Hill M, Chitty LS, Lewis C. Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013; 21: 713-718.
17. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in mateRNAl plasma and serum. Lancet. 1997; 350: 485-487.
18. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP on behalf of the MatERNAl BLood IS Source to Accurately diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group: Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by mateRNAl plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119: 890-901.
19. Daley R, Hill M, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: progress and potential. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014; 99: F426-F430.
20. 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 USA. 2008; 105: 20458-20463.
21. 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 USA. 2008; 105: 16266-16271.
22. Mersy E, Smits LJ, van Winden LA, et al. 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.
23. 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: 156-173.
24. Gekas J, Langlois S, Ravitsky V, et al. Identification of trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and Down syndrome from mateRNAl plasma. Appl Clin Genet. 2014; 7: 127-131.
25. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al. CARE Study Group: DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 799-808.
26. Dan S, Wang W, Ren J, et al. Clinical application of massively parallel sequencingbased prenatal noninvasive fetal trisomy test for trisomies 21 and 18 in 11, 105 pregnancies with mixed risk factors. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 32: 1225-1232.
27. Fairbrother G, Johnson S, Musci TJ, Song K. Clinical experience of noninvasive prenatal testing with cell-free DNA for fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13, in a general screening population. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 580-583.
28. 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.
29. Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Ashoor G, Birdir C, Touzet G. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies in a routinely screened first-Trimester population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207: 374, e1-6.
30. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Non-invasive examination of trisomy using cell free DNA analysis: The NEXT Study. N Engl J Med 2015, in press
31. 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.
32. Quezada MS, Gil MM, Francisco C, Oròsz G, Nicolaides KH. Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by cell-free DNA analysis of mateRNAl blood at 10-11 weeks' gestation and the combined test at 11-13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 45: 36-41.
33. Taglauer ES, Wilkins-Haug L, Bianchi DW. Review: cell-free fetal DNA in the mateRNAl circulation as an indication of placental health and disease. Placenta. 2014; 35: S64-S68.
34. 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.
35. Morain S, Greene MF, Mello MM: A new era in noninvasive prenatal testing. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 499-501.
36. Savva GM, Walker K, Morris JK. The mateRNAl age-specific live birth prevalence of trisomies 13 and 18 compared to trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). Prenat Diagn. 2010; 30: 57-64.
37. Verweij EJ, de Boer MA, Oepkes D. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 13: more harm than good? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 112-114.
38. Straver R, Sistermans EA, Reinders MJ. Introducing WISECONDOR for noninvasive prenatal diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2014; 14: 513-515.
39. Canick JA, Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Haddow JE. The impact of mateRNAl plasma DNA fetal fraction on next generation sequencing tests for common fetal aneuploidies. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 667-674.
40. Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, Rezende JC, Nicolaides KH. Fetal fraction in mateRNAl plasma cell-free DNA at 11-13 weeks' gestation: relation to mateRNAl and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41: 26-32.
41. Wang E, Batey A, Struble C, Musci T, Song K, Oliphant A. Gestational age and mateRNAl weight effects on fetal cell-free DNA in mateRNAl plasma. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 662-666.
42. Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42: 15-33.
43. Huang X, Zheng J, Chen M, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing of trisomies 21 and 18 by massively parallel sequencing of mateRNAl plasma DNA in twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34: 335-340.
44. Haddow J, Palomaki G. ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic test; in Khoury M, Little J, Burke W (eds): Human Genome Epidemiology. A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp 217-233.
45. Health Council of the Netherlands: Screening: Between Hope and Hype. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2008. Available at. http://www.gezondheidsraad. nl/en/publications/preventie/screening-between-hope-And-hype (last accessed 22 December 2014
46. Juth N, Munthe C. The Ethics of Screening in Health Care and Medicine: Serving Society or Serving the Patient? Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 2012.
47. Clarke AJ. Prenatal screening. Paradigms and perspectives; In Harper DS, Clark AJ (eds): Genetics, Society and Clinical Practice. Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers, 1997, pp 119-140.
48. Parens E, Asch A. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003; 9: 40-47.
49. Health Council of the Netherlands: Prenatal Screening. Down's syndrome, neural tube defects, routine-ultrasonography. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2001 [Dutch; summary in English]. Available at. http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/en/.publications/preventie/prenatal-screening-downs-syndrome-neural-Tube-defects-routineultrasonography (last accessed 22 December 2014
50. UK National Screening Committee. Criteria for Appraising the Viability, Effectiveness and Appropriateness of a Screening Programme. Available at. http://www.screening. nhs.uk/criteria (last accessed 22 December 2014
51. Sundhedsstyrelsen: Retningslinjer for fosterdiagnostik. Prænatal Information, Risikovurdering, Rådgivning og Diagnostik. København, Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2004 [Danish]. Available at. https://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2004/Informeret-valg.pd (last accessed 22 December 2014
52. De Jong A, De Wert GM. Prenatal screening: an ethical agenda for the near future. Bioethics. 2015; 29: 46-55.
53. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns. 2002; 48: 87-91.
54. Ames AG, Metcalfe SA, Archibald AD, Duncan RE, Emery J. Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 23: 8-21.
55. Van Agt HM, Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML. Interventions to enhance informed choices among invitees of screening programmes-A systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2014; 24: 789-801.
56. Larion S, Warsof SL, Romary L, Mlynarczyk M, Peleg D, Abuhamad AZ. Association of combined first-Trimester screen and noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1303-1310.
57. Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010; 27: 1-7.
58. Morris S, Karlsen S, Chung N, Hill M, Chitty LS. Model-based analysis of costs and outcomes of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome using cell free fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e93559.
59. Verweij EJ, de Boer MA, Oepkes D. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: no paradigm shift, just better testing. and it is already here!. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40: 484-485.
60. Verweij EJ, Oepkes D, de Boer MA. Changing attitudes towards termination of pregnancy for trisomy 21 with non-invasive prenatal trisomy testing: a population-based study in Dutch pregnant women. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 397-399.
61. 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.
62. Hill M, Wright D, Daley R, et al. 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.
63. 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: 350-356.
64. 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 NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 54: 412-417.
65. Crombag NM, Vellinga YE, Kluijfhout SA, et al. Explaining variation in Down's syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 437.
66. 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.
67. Van Schendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, et al. 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.
68. Hewison J. Psychological aspects of individualized choice and reproductive autonomy in prenatal screening. Bioethics. 2015; 29: 9-18.
69. Deans Z, Newson AJ. Should non-invasiveness change informed consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis? Health Care Anal. 2011; 19: 122-132.
70. Bianchi DW. From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine: progress and challenges. Nat Med. 2012; 18: 1041-1051.
71. Van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E, et al. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78: 24-28.
72. Allyse MA, Sayres LC, Havard M, et al. Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 656-661.
73. Seror V, Costet N, Ayme S. Dépistage prénatal de la trisomie 21 par marquers sériques maternels: del'information à la prise de décision des femmes enceintes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2000; 29: 492-500.
74. Dahl K, Kesmodel U, Hvidman L, Olesen F. Informed consent: attitudes, knowledge and information concerning prenatal examinations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006; 85: 1414-1419.
75. Van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, ten Kate LP, van Vugt JM, van der Wal G. Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 63: 110-117.
76. Tsouroufli M. Routinisation and constraints on informed choice in a one-stop clinic offering first trimester chromosomal antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. Midwifery. 2011; 27: 431-436.
77. 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.
78. Susman MR, Amor DJ, Muggli E, Jaques AM, Halliday J. Using population-based data to predict the impact of introducing noninvasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome. Genet Med. 2010; 12: 298-303.
79. De Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Frints SG, de Die-Smulders CE, de Wert GM. Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension. Nat Rev Genet. 2011; 12: 657-663.
80. Chitty LS, Hill M, White H, Wright D, Morris S. Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy-ready for prime time? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 269-275.
81. 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.
82. Zhong Y, Tuuli M, Odibo AO. First-Trimester assessment of placenta function and the prediction of pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. Prenat Diagn. 2010; 30: 293-308.
83. Lau TK, Jiang FM, Stevenson RJ, et al. Secondary findings from non-invasive prenatal testing for common fetal aneuploidies by whole genome sequencing as a clinical service. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 602-608.
84. Madan K, Breuning MH. Impact of prenatal technologies on the sex ratio in India: an overview. Genet Med. 2014; 16: 425-432.
85. van Balen F. Attitudes towards sex selection in the Western world. Prenat Diagn. 2006; 26: 614-618.
86. Dubuc S, Coleman D. An increase in the sex ratio of births to India-born mothers in England and Wales: evidence for sex-selective abortion. Pop Dev Rev. 2007; 33: 383-400.
87. Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G, et al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 1448-1454.
88. Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Prenatal sex selection. Resolution No. 1829. Available at. http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/.ta11/ERES1829.htm (last accessed 22 December 2014
89. Mazloom AR, Džakula Ž, Oeth P, et al. Noninvasive prenatal detection of sex chromosomal aneuploidies by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from mateRNAl plasma. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 591-597.
90. Hayden EC. Prenatal-screening companies expand scope of DNA tests. Nature. 2014; 507: 19.
91. Vora NL, O'Brien BM. Noninvasive prenatal testing for microdeletion syndromes and expanded trisomies: proceed with caution. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1097-1099.
92. Bojesen A, Juul S, Gravholt CH. Prenatal and postnatal prevalence of Klinefelter syndrome: a national registry study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003; 88: 622-626.
93. Pieters JJ, Verhaak CM, Braat DD, van Leeuwen E, Smits AP. Experts' opinions on the benefit of an incidental prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosomal aneuploidy: a qualitative interview survey. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 32: 1151-1157.
94. Boyd PA, Loane M, Garne E, Khoshnood B, Dolk HEUROCAT working group: Sex chromosome trisomies in Europe: prevalence, prenatal detection and outcome of pregnancy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011; 19: 231-234.
95. Loane M, Morris JK, Addor MC, et al. 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.
96. 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.
97. Michaelson-Cohen R, Gershoni-Baruch R, Sharoni R, Shochat M, Yaron Y, Singer A. Israeli Society of Medical Genetics NIPT Committee: Opinion 072013: Non-invasive prenatal testing of cell-free DNA in mateRNAl plasma for detection of fetal aneuploidy. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 36: 242-244.
98. Samango-Sprouse C, Banjevic M, Ryan A, Sigurjonsson S, et al. SNP-based noninvasive prenatal testing detects sex chromosome aneuploidies with high accuracy. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 643-649.
99. Yao H, Jiang F, Hu H, et al. Detection of fetal sex chromosome aneuploidy by massively parallel sequencing of mateRNAl plasma DNA: initial experience in a Chinese hospital. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 17-24.
100. Wang Y, Chen Y, Tian F, et al. MateRNAl mosaicism is a significant contributor to discordant sex chromosomal aneuploidies associated with noninvasive prenatal testing. Clin Chem. 2014; 6: 251-259.
101. Huang B, Thangavelu M, Bhatt S, J Sandlin C, Wang S. Prenatal diagnosis of 45, X and 45, X mosaicism: the need for thorough cytogenetic and clinical evaluations. Prenat Diagn. 2002; 22: 105-110.
102. Lau TK, Chan MK, Salome Lo PS, et al. Non-invasive prenatal screening of fetal sex chromosomal abnormalities: perspective of pregnant women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25: 2616-2619.
103. Clarke A. The genetic testing of children. Working Party of the Clinical Genetic Society (UK). J Med Genet. 1994; 31: 785-797.
104. Herlihy A, Halliday J, Mclachlan R, Cock M, Gillam L. Assessing the risks and benefits of diagnosing genetic conditions with variable phenotypes through population screening: Klinefelter syndrome as an example. J Community Genet. 2010; 1: 41-46.
105. Slavotinek A. Microdeletion Syndromes. eLS 2012.
106. Crawford G, Foulds N, Fenwick A, Hallowell N, Lucassen A. Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genet Med. 2013; 15: 896-869.
107. Lo K, Boustred C, McKay F, Fielding S, Plagnol V, Chitty L. Detection of "subchromosomal" pathogenic changes by sequencing cfDNA in mateRNAl plasma: feasibility and implementation strategies. Prenat Diag. 2014; 34: 10.
108. Lo YM, Chan KC, Sun H, et al. MateRNAl plasma DNA sequencing reveals the genomewide genetic and mutational profile of the fetus. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2: 61ra91.
109. Kitzman JO, Snyder MW, Ventura M, et al. Noninvasive whole genome sequencing of a human fetus. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4: 137ra76.
110. Schwartz B. The Paradox of Choice. Why More is Less. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2004.
111. Van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, et al. ESHG Public and Professional Policy Committee. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013; 21: S1-S5.
112. Elias S, Annas GJ. Generic consent for genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 1611-1613.
113. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Committee on Bioethics, Committee on Genetics, and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues Committee: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics. 2013; 131: 620-622.
114. Borry P, et al. Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics: Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 17: 720-721.
115. British Society of Human Genetics (BSHG). Report on the Genetic Testing of Children. Birmingham, BSHG, 2010. Available at. http://www.bsgm.org.uk/information-education/.websites-downloads/.(last accessed 22 December 2014
116. Feinberg J.: The child's right to an open future; In Aiken W, LaFolette H (eds): Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority and State Power. Totowa NJ, Littlefield: Adams & Co, 1980, pp 124-153.
117. De Wert G. Ethical aspects of prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for late-onset neurogenetic disorders: the case of Huntington's disease; In Evers-Kiebooms G, Zoeteweij M, Harper P (eds): Prenatal Testing for Late-onset Neurogenetic Diseases. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd, 2002, pp. 129-157.
118. De Die-Smulders CE, de Wert GM, Liebaers I, Tibben AEvers-Kiebooms G. Reproductive options for prospective parents in families with Huntington'sdisease: clinical, psychological and ethical reflections. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19: 304-315.
119. MacLeod R, Tibben A, Frontali M, et al. Editorial Committee and Working Group 'Genetic Testing Counselling' of the European Huntington Disease Network: Recommendations for the predictive genetic test in Huntington's disease. Clin Genet. 2013; 83: 221-231.
120. Deans Z, Clarke A, Newson A. For your interest? The ethical acceptability of using non-invasive prenatal testing to test 'purely for information'. Bioethics. 2015; 29: 19-25.
121. Farrimond HR, Kelly SE. Public viewpoints on new non-invasive prenatal genetic tests. Public Underst Sci. 2013; 22: 730-744.
122. Dondorp WJ, de Wert GM. The 'thousand-dollar genome': an ethical exploration. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013; 21: S6-S26.
123. Jørgensen JM, Hedley PL, Gjerris M, Christiansen M. Including ethical considerations in models for first-Trimester screening for pre-eclampsia. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014; 28: 638-643.
124. Van der Schoot CE, Hahn S, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis and determination of fetal Rh status. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008; 13: 63-68.
125. Poon LC, Musci T, Song K, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH. MateRNAl plasma cell-free fetal and mateRNAl DNA at 11-13 weeks' gestation: relation to fetal and mateRNAl characteristics and pregnancy outcomes. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013; 33: 215-223.
126. TRIDENT 2014. Trial by Dutch laboratories for Evaluation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). Available at. http://www.emgo.nl/research/quality-of-care/researchprojects/.1451/trident-study-Trial-by-dutch-laboratories-for-evaluation-of-non-invasiveprenatal-Testing-nipt/background/.(last accessed 22 December 2014
127. Munthe C. A new ethical landscape of prenatal testing: individualizing choice to serve autonomy and promote public health: a radical proposal. Bioethics. 2015; 29: 36-45.
128. John S. Efficiency, responsibility and disability: philosophical lessons from the savings argument for prenatal diagnosis. Polit Philos Econ. 2015; 14: 3-22.
129. 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. 2014; 34: 1-7.
130. 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 costeffectiveness analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182C: 53-61.
131. 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.
132. Cuckle H, Benn P, Pergament E. MateRNAl cfDNA screening for Down syndrome-A cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 636-642.
133. Cornel MC, van El CG, Dondorp WJ. The promises of genomic screening: building a goveRNAnce infrastructure. Special issue: genetics and democracy. J Community Genet. 2012; 3: 73-77.
134. Skirton H, Jackson L, Goldsmith L, O'Connor A. Are health professionals ready for direct-To-consumer genetic and genomic testing? Personalized Med. 2013; 10: 673-682.