Kasper Gadsbøll1, Olav B Petersen1,2, Vincent Gatinois3, Heather Strange4, Bo Jacobsson5, Ronald Wapner6, Joris R Vermeesch7, Ida Vogel8,9. 1. Center for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Chromosome Genetics Laboratory, CHU Montpellier, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 4. Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 5. Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 8. Department of Clinical Genetics, Aarhus University/Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 9. Center for Fetal Diagnostics, Aarhus University/Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free fetal DNA has increasingly been adopted as a screening tool for fetal aneuploidies. Several studies have discussed benefits and limitations of NIPT compared with both ultrasound and invasive procedures, but in spite of some shortcomings NIPT has become extensively used within the last 5 years. This study aims to describe the current use of NIPT in Europe, Australia and the USA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a survey to describe the current use of NIPT. Colleagues filled in a simple email-based questionnaire on NIPT in their own country, providing information on (a) access to NIPT, (b) NIPT's chromosomal coverage, (c) financial coverage of NIPT for the patient and (d) the proportion of women using NIPT in pregnancy. Some data are best clinical estimates, due to a lack of national data. RESULTS: In Europe, 14 countries have adopted NIPT into a national policy/program. Two countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) offer NIPT for all pregnant women, whereas most other European countries have implemented NIPT as an offer for higher risk women after first trimester screening. In Australia, either combined first trimester screening (cFTS) or NIPT is used as a primary prenatal screening test. In the USA, there are no national consensus policies on the use of NIPT; however, NIPT is widely implemented. In most European countries offering NIPT, the proportion of women using NIPT is well below 25%. In the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Spain and most Australian and American States, 25%-50% of women have NIPT performed and in Belgium testing is above 75%. In most countries, NIPT reports on trisomy 13, 18 and 21, and often also on sex chromosome aneuploidies. Only in Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Greece, Cyprus and Italy is NIPT offered predominantly as a genome-wide test (including some microdeletions or a whole genome coverage). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive prenatal testing has been widely adopted throughout Europe, Australia and the USA, but only a few countries/states have a national policy on the use of NIPT. The variation in NIPT utilization is considerable.
INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free fetal DNA has increasingly been adopted as a screening tool for fetal aneuploidies. Several studies have discussed benefits and limitations of NIPT compared with both ultrasound and invasive procedures, but in spite of some shortcomings NIPT has become extensively used within the last 5 years. This study aims to describe the current use of NIPT in Europe, Australia and the USA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a survey to describe the current use of NIPT. Colleagues filled in a simple email-based questionnaire on NIPT in their own country, providing information on (a) access to NIPT, (b) NIPT's chromosomal coverage, (c) financial coverage of NIPT for the patient and (d) the proportion of women using NIPT in pregnancy. Some data are best clinical estimates, due to a lack of national data. RESULTS: In Europe, 14 countries have adopted NIPT into a national policy/program. Two countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) offer NIPT for all pregnant women, whereas most other European countries have implemented NIPT as an offer for higher risk women after first trimester screening. In Australia, either combined first trimester screening (cFTS) or NIPT is used as a primary prenatal screening test. In the USA, there are no national consensus policies on the use of NIPT; however, NIPT is widely implemented. In most European countries offering NIPT, the proportion of women using NIPT is well below 25%. In the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Spain and most Australian and American States, 25%-50% of women have NIPT performed and in Belgium testing is above 75%. In most countries, NIPT reports on trisomy 13, 18 and 21, and often also on sex chromosome aneuploidies. Only in Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Greece, Cyprus and Italy is NIPT offered predominantly as a genome-wide test (including some microdeletions or a whole genome coverage). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive prenatal testing has been widely adopted throughout Europe, Australia and the USA, but only a few countries/states have a national policy on the use of NIPT. The variation in NIPT utilization is considerable.
Authors: Linda Martin; Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink-Verheij; Robert-Jan Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Lisanne van Prooyen Schuurman; Erik A Sistermans; Diane Van Opstal; Lidewij Henneman; Mireille N Bekker; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Katelijne Bouman; Sonja de Munnik; Nicolette S den Hollander; Karin E M Diderich; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Attie T J I Go; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Marieke Joosten; Fenne L Komdeur; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Maria P Lombardi; Marike G Polak; Fernanda S Jehee; Heleen Schuring-Blom; Servi J C Stevens; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; Karuna R M van der Meij; Merel C van Maarle; Vivian Vernimmen; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Maarten F C M Knapen; Merryn V E Macville; Robert-Jan H Galjaard Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Malou A Lugthart; Bo B Bet; Fleur Elsman; Karline van de Kamp; Bernadette S de Bakker; Ingeborg H Linskens; Merel C van Maarle; Elisabeth van Leeuwen; Eva Pajkrt Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 3.242
Authors: Olav B Petersen; Eric Smith; Diane Van Opstal; Marike Polak; Maarten F C M Knapen; Karin E M Diderich; Caterina M Bilardo; Lidia R Arends; Ida Vogel; Malgorzata I Srebniak Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.636