Literature DB >> 22903386

Integrated and first trimester prenatal screening in California: program implementation and patient choice for follow-up services.

Robert Currier1, Nerissa Wu, Karla Van Meter, Sara Goldman, Fred Lorey, Monica Flessel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The California Prenatal Screening Program serves over 350,000 women annually. This study examines utilization rates for the various screening options and patient choices regarding follow-up services.
METHODS: The study tracked patients with first trimester positive results for Down syndrome to examine patient decisions regarding follow-up services and/or additional screening and to identify determinants of patient decisions. For first trimester screen positive women who elected further screening, second trimester integrated screening results were analyzed. The Genetic Disease Screening Program Chromosome Registry was used to identify Down syndrome cases.
RESULTS: Ethnicity, but not age, was a strong predictor of acceptance of prenatal diagnosis. Approximately 47% of first trimester screen positive women opted for further screening. Among these women, 46% percent received an integrated screen negative result. All but one confirmed Down syndrome case in this cohort were still screen positive.
CONCLUSIONS: Data from the California Prenatal Screening Program indicate that all of the major screening modalities continue to be utilized. The wide range of choices made by women with screen positive results demonstrate the importance of including multiple options within the Program. Providing integrated screening to first trimester Down syndrome screen positive women reduced the number of unnecessary invasive procedures.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22903386     DOI: 10.1002/pd.3961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  11 in total

1.  Early pregnancy prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus risk using prenatal screening biomarkers in nulliparous women.

Authors:  Brittney M Snyder; Rebecca J Baer; Scott P Oltman; Jennifer G Robinson; Patrick J Breheny; Audrey F Saftlas; Wei Bao; Andrea L Greiner; Knute D Carter; Larry Rand; Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Kelli K Ryckman
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 5.602

2.  Maternal characteristics and mid-pregnancy serum biomarkers as risk factors for subtypes of preterm birth.

Authors:  L L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; R J Baer; Y J Blumenfeld; K K Ryckman; H M O'Brodovich; J B Gould; M L Druzin; Y Y El-Sayed; D J Lyell; D K Stevenson; G M Shaw; R J Currier
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections.

Authors:  Erin Floyd; Megan A Allyse; Marsha Michie
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  A toolkit for the application of placental-fetal molecular biomarkers in epidemiologic studies of the fetal origins of chronic disease.

Authors:  Jennifer J Adibi; Alexander J Layden; Qing Yin; Xiaoshuang Xun; Shyamal Peddada; Rahel L Birru
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2020-12-28

5.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First Trimester Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening for Fetal Trisomies in the United States.

Authors:  Brandon S Walker; Richard E Nelson; Brian R Jackson; David G Grenache; Edward R Ashwood; Robert L Schmidt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Gestational dating by metabolic profile at birth: a California cohort study.

Authors:  Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Mary E Norton; Rebecca J Baer; Nicole Santos; George W Rutherford
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Non-invasive prenatal screening: A 20-year experience in Italy.

Authors:  Chiara Palka; Paolo Guanciali-Franchi; Elisena Morizio; Melissa Alfonsi; Marco Papponetti; Giulia Sabbatinelli; Giandomenico Palka; Giuseppe Calabrese; Peter Benn
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X       Date:  2019-05-18

8.  Impact of Cell-Free Fetal DNA Screening on Patients' Choice of Invasive Procedures after a Positive California Prenatal Screen Result.

Authors:  Forum T Shah; Kathryn Steinhaus French; Kathryn E Osann; Maureen Bocian; Marilyn C Jones; Lauren Korty
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population.

Authors:  Ken Song; Thomas J Musci; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2013-03-06

10.  Sequential combined test, second trimester maternal serum markers, and circulating fetal cells to select women for invasive prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Paolo Guanciali Franchi; Chiara Palka; Elisena Morizio; Giulia Sabbatinelli; Melissa Alfonsi; Donatella Fantasia; Giammaria Sitar; Peter Benn; Giuseppe Calabrese
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.