Cargando…
Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionized the prenatal screening landscape with its high accuracy and low false positive rate for detecting Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Good understanding of its benefits and limitations is crucial for obstetricians to provide effective counsellin...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7528474/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33004009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03279-y |
_version_ | 1783589268406403072 |
---|---|
author | Yang, Liying Tan, Wei Ching |
author_facet | Yang, Liying Tan, Wei Ching |
author_sort | Yang, Liying |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionized the prenatal screening landscape with its high accuracy and low false positive rate for detecting Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Good understanding of its benefits and limitations is crucial for obstetricians to provide effective counselling and make informed decisions about its use. This study aimed to evaluate obstetrician knowledge and attitudes regarding NIPT for screening for the common trisomies, explore how obstetricians integrated NIPT into first-line and contingent screening, and determine whether expanded use of NIPT to screen for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes (CNVs) was widespread. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed and administered with reference to the CHERRIES criteria for online surveys. Doctors on the Obstetrics & Gynaecology trainee and specialist registers were invited to participate. Medians and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for confidence and knowledge scores. RESULTS: 94/306 (30.7%) doctors responded to the survey. First trimester screening (FTS) remained the main method offered to screen for the common trisomies. 45.7% (43/94) offered NIPT as an alternative first-line screen for singletons and 30.9% (29/94) for monochorionic diamniotic twins. A significant proportion offered concurrent NT and NIPT (25/94, 26.6%), or FTS and NIPT (33/94, 35.1%) in singletons. Varying follow up strategies were offered at intermediate, high and very-high FTS risk cut-offs for Trisomy 21. Respondents were likely to offer screening for SCAs and CNVs to give patients autonomy of choice (53/94, 56.4% SCAs, 47/94, 50% CNVs) at no additional cost (52/94, 55.3% SCAs, 39/94, 41.5% CNVs). Median clinical knowledge scores were high (10/12) and did not differ significantly between specialists (95% CI 10–11) and non-specialists (95% CI 9.89–11). Lower scores were observed for scenarios in which NIPT would be more likely to fail. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the diversity of clinical practice with regard to the incorporation of NIPT into prenatal screening algorithms, and suggest that the use of NIPT both as a first-line screening tool in the general obstetric population, and to screen for SCAs and CNVs, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Clear guidance and continuing educational support are essential for providers in this rapidly evolving field. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7528474 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75284742020-10-02 Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice Yang, Liying Tan, Wei Ching BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionized the prenatal screening landscape with its high accuracy and low false positive rate for detecting Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Good understanding of its benefits and limitations is crucial for obstetricians to provide effective counselling and make informed decisions about its use. This study aimed to evaluate obstetrician knowledge and attitudes regarding NIPT for screening for the common trisomies, explore how obstetricians integrated NIPT into first-line and contingent screening, and determine whether expanded use of NIPT to screen for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes (CNVs) was widespread. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed and administered with reference to the CHERRIES criteria for online surveys. Doctors on the Obstetrics & Gynaecology trainee and specialist registers were invited to participate. Medians and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for confidence and knowledge scores. RESULTS: 94/306 (30.7%) doctors responded to the survey. First trimester screening (FTS) remained the main method offered to screen for the common trisomies. 45.7% (43/94) offered NIPT as an alternative first-line screen for singletons and 30.9% (29/94) for monochorionic diamniotic twins. A significant proportion offered concurrent NT and NIPT (25/94, 26.6%), or FTS and NIPT (33/94, 35.1%) in singletons. Varying follow up strategies were offered at intermediate, high and very-high FTS risk cut-offs for Trisomy 21. Respondents were likely to offer screening for SCAs and CNVs to give patients autonomy of choice (53/94, 56.4% SCAs, 47/94, 50% CNVs) at no additional cost (52/94, 55.3% SCAs, 39/94, 41.5% CNVs). Median clinical knowledge scores were high (10/12) and did not differ significantly between specialists (95% CI 10–11) and non-specialists (95% CI 9.89–11). Lower scores were observed for scenarios in which NIPT would be more likely to fail. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the diversity of clinical practice with regard to the incorporation of NIPT into prenatal screening algorithms, and suggest that the use of NIPT both as a first-line screening tool in the general obstetric population, and to screen for SCAs and CNVs, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Clear guidance and continuing educational support are essential for providers in this rapidly evolving field. BioMed Central 2020-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7528474/ /pubmed/33004009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03279-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yang, Liying Tan, Wei Ching Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
title | Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
title_full | Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
title_fullStr | Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
title_full_unstemmed | Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
title_short | Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
title_sort | prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7528474/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33004009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03279-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yangliying prenatalscreeningintheeraofnoninvasiveprenataltestinganationwidecrosssectionalsurveyofobstetricianknowledgeattitudesandclinicalpractice AT tanweiching prenatalscreeningintheeraofnoninvasiveprenataltestinganationwidecrosssectionalsurveyofobstetricianknowledgeattitudesandclinicalpractice |