Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1160-1164

  Fairbrother, Genevieve ^a   Burigo, John ^b   Sharon, Thomas ^a   Song, Ken ^c  

^a Obstetrics and Gynecology of Atlanta   (United States)

^b Ob Gyn Specialists of the Palm Beaches PA   (United States)

^c Ariosa Diagnostics   (United States)

Author keywords

Cell free DNA; cost effectiveness; Down syndrome; non invasive prenatal testing; prenatal screening

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS WASTAGE; FIRST TRIMESTER COMBINED SCREENING; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NON INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; TRISOMY; ADULT; CELL FREE SYSTEM; CHEMISTRY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVALUATION STUDY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FETAL DISEASES; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; PROCEDURES;

DNA;

ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; CELL-FREE SYSTEM; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DNA; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; TRISOMY;

EID: 84955267704     PISSN: 14767058     EISSN: 14764954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1038703     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Driscoll DA, Gross S. Clinical practice. Prenatal screening for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 2556-62
2. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77.: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obs Gynecol 2007; 109: 217-27
3. Kagan KO, Wright D, Valencia C, et al. Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency, fetal heart rate, free beta-hCG and pregnancy-Associated plasma protein-A. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 1968-75
4. Evans MI, Krantz DA, Hallahan TW, Sherwin J. Impact of nuchal translucency credentialing by the FMF, the NTQR or both on screening distributions and performance. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol 2012; 39: 181-4
5. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, 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 Obs Gynecol 2012; 207: 137.e1-8
6. Gil MM, Akolekar R, Quezada MS, et al. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: meta-Analysis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 35: 156-73
7. Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Ashoor G, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies in a routinely screened first-Trimester population. Am J Obs Gynecol 2012; 207: 374.e1-6
8. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97
9. Song K, Musci TJ, Caughey AB. Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 7058: 1-6
10. Committee opinion no. 545.: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obs Gynecol 2012; 120: 1532-4
11. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG, et al. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med 2013; 15: 395-8
12. Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2015. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.57
13. Larion S, Warsof SL, Romary L, et al. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing at a large academic referral center. Am J Obs Gynecol 2014; 211: 651.e1-7
14. Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, Morris S. Womens and health professionals preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: A discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med 2012; 14: 905-13
15. Evans MI, Sonek JD, Hallahan TW, Krantz DA. Cell-free fetal DNA screening in the USA: A cost analysis of screening strategies. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol 2015; 45: 74-83
16. Walker BS, Jackson BR, LaGrave D, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2014. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1002/pd.4511
17. Cuckle H, Benn P, Pergament E. Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome-A cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 636-42
18. Cuckle HS, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. Estimating a womans risk of having a pregnancy associated with Downs syndrome using her age and serum alpha-fetoprotein level. Br J Obs Gynaecol 1987; 94: 387-402
19. Snijders RJ, Sebire NJ, Souka A, et al. Fetal exomphalos and chromosomal defects: relationship to maternal age and gestation. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol 1995; 6: 250-5
20. 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
21. Shaffer BL, Caughey AB, Norton ME. Variation in the decision to terminate pregnancy in the setting of fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 667-71
22. Caughey AB, Hopkins LM, Norton ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obs Gynecol 2006; 108: 612-16
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Economic costs of birth defects and cerebral palsy-United States, 1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995; 44: 694-9