Ethical issues associated with prenatal screening using non-invasive prenatal testing for sex chromosome aneuploidy

Prenatal screening for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) is increasingly available through expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). NIPT for SCAs raises complex ethical issues for clinical providers, prospective parents and future children. This paper discusses the ethical issues that arise around NIPT for SCAs and current guidelines and protocols for management. The first section outlines current practice and the limitations of NIPT for SCAs. It then outlines key guidelines before discussing the ethical issues raised by this use of NIPT. We conclude that while screening for SCAs should be made available for people seeking to use NIPT, its implementation requires careful consideration of what, when and how information is provided to users.     

Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

Objective

To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Method

A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious.

Results

Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were “I would never terminate my pregnancy” (57.1%) and “every child is welcome” (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy.

Conclusion

The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.     

Cystic fibrosis: selecting the prenatal screening strategy of choice

Cystic fibrosis is a serious disorder. Research into the treatment of affected individuals is in progress, but a cure is not expected in the near future. In this review, we demonstrate that prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis meets the requirements for a worthwhile screening programme. We explain the reasons that have led us to conclude that one approach (‘couple screening’) is the method of choice. The couple-based approach calls for reporting results to the couple as a unit. Only if both parents are found to be carriers is the result designated screen-positive and an amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling offered. This offers a substantial reduction in the proportion of women with unaffected pregnancies with positive results (the false-positive rate) compared with other methods without reducing the detection of affected pregnancies. It also avoids creating a screen-positive group for which no definitive diagnosis is available. This is a problem with other screening methods. The couple method can achieve a 72% detection rate for a 0.1% false-positive rate. The screening method is simple, non-invasive, reliable, safe and reasonably cost effective. Existing programmes have shown that screening using this method is acceptable to health care professionals and patients. Setting up a national prenatal screening programme for cystic fibrosis is timely and should be implemented using the couple screening method. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Benefits and limitations of prenatal screening for Prader–Willi syndrome

This review summarizes the status of genetic laboratory testing in Prader–Willi syndrome (PWS) with different genetic subtypes, most often a paternally derived 15q11–q13 deletion and discusses benefits and limitations related to prenatal screening. Medical literature was searched for prenatal screening and genetic laboratory testing methods in use or under development and discussed in relationship to PWS. Genetic testing includes six established laboratory diagnostic approaches for PWS with direct application to prenatal screening. Ultrasonographic, obstetric and cytogenetic reports were summarized in relationship to the cause of PWS and identification of specific genetic subtypes including maternal disomy 15. Advances in genetic technology were described for diagnosing PWS specifically DNA methylation and high-resolution chromosomal SNP microarrays as current tools for genetic screening and incorporating next generation DNA sequencing for noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free fetal DNA. Positive experiences are reported with NIPT for detection of numerical chromosomal problems (aneuploidies) but not for structural problems (microdeletions). These reports will be discussed along with future directions for genetic screening of PWS. In summary, this review describes and discusses the status of established and ongoing genetic testing options for PWS applicable in prenatal screening including NIPT and future directions for early diagnosis in PWS. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: Cell-free DNA prenatal screening should be used to identify all chromosome abnormalities

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from maternal serum has been clinically available since 2011. This technology has revolutionized our ability to screen for the common aneuploidies trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. More recently, clinical laboratories have offered screening for other chromosome abnormalities including sex chromosome abnormalities and copy number variants (CNV) without little published data on the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. In this debate, the pros and cons of performing prenatal screening via cfDNA for all chromosome abnormalities is discussed. At the time of the debate in 2017, the general consensus was that the literature does not yet support using this technology to screen for all chromosome abnormalities and that education is key for both providers and the patients so that the decision-making process is as informed as possible.