Anjali J Kaimal1, Mary E Norton, Miriam Kuppermann. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and the Departments of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To use a decision-analytic model to assess a comprehensive set of outcomes of prenatal genetic testing strategies among women of varying ages. METHODS: We assessed outcomes of six testing strategies incorporating diagnostic testing with chromosomal microarray, multiple marker screening, cell-free DNA screening, and nuchal translucency screening alone, in combination, or in sequence. Clinical outcomes included prenatal detection or birth of a neonate with a significant chromosomal abnormality and diagnostic procedures performed. Other outcomes included maternal quality-adjusted life-years and costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: At all ages assessed, screening strategies starting with multiple marker screening offered the highest detection rate when all chromosomal abnormalities were considered. Incorporating cell-free DNA as an optional secondary screen decreased the number of diagnostic procedures, but also decreased the number of abnormalities diagnosed prenatally, resulting in a similar number of procedures per case diagnosed at age 30 years; the option of secondary cell-free DNA screening becomes more favorable at older ages. Multiple marker screening with optional follow-up diagnostic testing was the most effective (highest quality-adjusted life-years) and least expensive strategy at ages 20-38 years. At age 40 years or older, cell-free DNA screening was optimal with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73,154 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSION: When considering all detectable chromosome problems as well as patient preferences and baseline risks, multiple marker screening with the option of diagnostic testing for screen-positive results is the optimal strategy for most women. At age 40 years and older, cell-free DNA as a primary screen becomes optimal and is cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
OBJECTIVE: To use a decision-analytic model to assess a comprehensive set of outcomes of prenatal genetic testing strategies among women of varying ages. METHODS: We assessed outcomes of six testing strategies incorporating diagnostic testing with chromosomal microarray, multiple marker screening, cell-free DNA screening, and nuchal translucency screening alone, in combination, or in sequence. Clinical outcomes included prenatal detection or birth of a neonate with a significant chromosomal abnormality and diagnostic procedures performed. Other outcomes included maternal quality-adjusted life-years and costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: At all ages assessed, screening strategies starting with multiple marker screening offered the highest detection rate when all chromosomal abnormalities were considered. Incorporating cell-free DNA as an optional secondary screen decreased the number of diagnostic procedures, but also decreased the number of abnormalities diagnosed prenatally, resulting in a similar number of procedures per case diagnosed at age 30 years; the option of secondary cell-free DNA screening becomes more favorable at older ages. Multiple marker screening with optional follow-up diagnostic testing was the most effective (highest quality-adjusted life-years) and least expensive strategy at ages 20-38 years. At age 40 years or older, cell-free DNA screening was optimal with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73,154 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSION: When considering all detectable chromosome problems as well as patient preferences and baseline risks, multiple marker screening with the option of diagnostic testing for screen-positive results is the optimal strategy for most women. At age 40 years and older, cell-free DNA as a primary screen becomes optimal and is cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Matthew R Grace; Emily Hardisty; Sarah K Dotters-Katz; Neeta L Vora; Jeffrey A Kuller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Surv Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.347
Authors: Ruth M Farrell; Madelyn Pierce; Christina Collart; Meng Yao; Marissa Coleridge; Edward K Chien; Susannah S Rose; Mary Lintel; Uma Perni; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-12-04 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Anthony R Gregg; Brian G Skotko; Judith L Benkendorf; Kristin G Monaghan; Komal Bajaj; Robert G Best; Susan Klugman; Michael S Watson Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 8.822