OBJECTIVE: To characterize the patient population utilizing circulating cell-free fetal DNA (ccffDNA) testing at a large academic center and evaluate trends in the performance of invasive diagnostic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent cell-free DNA testing from May to December 2012 was performed. RESULT: During the study period, 206 patients had cell-free DNA testing. Of those, 75% (155/206) were of ages ⩾ 35 years. Of those undergoing ccffDNA testing, 41% had positive aneuploidy screening and 38% had abnormal ultrasound findings. Only 7% of the patients with negative ccffDNA testing opted for an invasive diagnostic procedure compared with 60% with positive testing (P<0.01). The rate of invasive procedures decreased from 5.9% of all visits to the center during a similar 8-month period in 2010 to 4.1% of all visits during the study period (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ccffDNA testing leads to reduced uptake of invasive procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the patient population utilizing circulating cell-free fetal DNA (ccffDNA) testing at a large academic center and evaluate trends in the performance of invasive diagnostic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent cell-free DNA testing from May to December 2012 was performed. RESULT: During the study period, 206 patients had cell-free DNA testing. Of those, 75% (155/206) were of ages ⩾ 35 years. Of those undergoing ccffDNA testing, 41% had positive aneuploidy screening and 38% had abnormal ultrasound findings. Only 7% of the patients with negative ccffDNA testing opted for an invasive diagnostic procedure compared with 60% with positive testing (P<0.01). The rate of invasive procedures decreased from 5.9% of all visits to the center during a similar 8-month period in 2010 to 4.1% of all visits during the study period (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ccffDNA testing leads to reduced uptake of invasive procedures.
Authors: Rossa W K Chiu; Ranjit Akolekar; Yama W L Zheng; Tak Y Leung; Hao Sun; K C Allen Chan; Fiona M F Lun; Attie T J I Go; Elizabeth T Lau; William W K To; Wing C Leung; Rebecca Y K Tang; Sidney K C Au-Yeung; Helena Lam; Yu Y Kung; Xiuqing Zhang; John M G van Vugt; Ryoko Minekawa; Mary H Y Tang; Jun Wang; Cees B M Oudejans; Tze K Lau; Kypros H Nicolaides; Y M Dennis Lo Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-01-11
Authors: Keith A Eddleman; Fergal D Malone; Lisa Sullivan; Kim Dukes; Richard L Berkowitz; Yara Kharbutli; T Flint Porter; David A Luthy; Christine H Comstock; George R Saade; Susan Klugman; Lorraine Dugoff; Sabrina D Craigo; Ilan E Timor-Tritsch; Stephen R Carr; Honor M Wolfe; Mary E D'Alton Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew B Sparks; Eric T Wang; Craig A Struble; Wade Barrett; Renee Stokowski; Celeste McBride; Jacob Zahn; Kevin Lee; Naiping Shen; Jigna Doshi; Michel Sun; Jill Garrison; Jay Sandler; Desiree Hollemon; Patrick Pattee; Aoy Tomita-Mitchell; Michael Mitchell; John Stuelpnagel; Ken Song; Arnold Oliphant Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Cosmin Deciu; Edward M Kloza; Geralyn M Lambert-Messerlian; James E Haddow; Louis M Neveux; Mathias Ehrich; Dirk van den Boom; Allan T Bombard; Wayne W Grody; Stanley F Nelson; Jacob A Canick Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Soo Min Kim; Hyun Hee Kim; You Jung Han; June Seek Choi; Hyun Mee Ryu; Seongwoo Yang; Min Hyoung Kim Journal: Obstet Gynecol Sci Date: 2018-06-19