Cargando…

Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies

BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening for chromosome aneuploidies have constantly been evolving, especially with the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening in the most recent years. This study compares the performance, costs and timing of test results of three cfDNA screening implementation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Tianhua, Gibbons, Clare, Rashid, Shamim, Priston, Megan K., Bedford, H. Melanie, Mak-Tam, Ellen, Meschino, Wendy S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33228595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03394-w
_version_ 1783613382570541056
author Huang, Tianhua
Gibbons, Clare
Rashid, Shamim
Priston, Megan K.
Bedford, H. Melanie
Mak-Tam, Ellen
Meschino, Wendy S.
author_facet Huang, Tianhua
Gibbons, Clare
Rashid, Shamim
Priston, Megan K.
Bedford, H. Melanie
Mak-Tam, Ellen
Meschino, Wendy S.
author_sort Huang, Tianhua
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening for chromosome aneuploidies have constantly been evolving, especially with the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening in the most recent years. This study compares the performance, costs and timing of test results of three cfDNA screening implementation strategies: contingent, reflex and primary. METHODS: We modelled enhanced first trimester screening (eFTS) as the first-tier test in contingent or reflex strategies. cfDNA test was performed contingent on or reflex from eFTS results. A comparison was made between cfDNA screening using sequencing technology and Rolling Circle Amplification (RCA)/imaging solution. All model assumptions were based on results from previous publications or information from the Ontario prenatal screening population. RESULTS: At an eFTS risk cut-off of ≥1/1000, contingent and reflex cfDNA screening have the same detection rate (DR) (94%) for trisomy 21. Reflex cfDNA screening using RCA/Imaging solution provided the lowest false positive rate and cost. The number of women requiring genetic counselling and diagnostic testing was significantly reduced and women received their cfDNA screening result 9 days sooner compared with the contingent model. While primary cfDNA screening improved the trisomy 21 DR by 3–5%, it was more costly and more women required diagnostic testing. CONCLUSION: Reflex cfDNA screening is the most cost-effective prenatal screening strategy. It can improve the efficiency of prenatal aneuploidy screening by reducing the number of patient visits and providing more timely results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7686697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76866972020-11-25 Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies Huang, Tianhua Gibbons, Clare Rashid, Shamim Priston, Megan K. Bedford, H. Melanie Mak-Tam, Ellen Meschino, Wendy S. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening for chromosome aneuploidies have constantly been evolving, especially with the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening in the most recent years. This study compares the performance, costs and timing of test results of three cfDNA screening implementation strategies: contingent, reflex and primary. METHODS: We modelled enhanced first trimester screening (eFTS) as the first-tier test in contingent or reflex strategies. cfDNA test was performed contingent on or reflex from eFTS results. A comparison was made between cfDNA screening using sequencing technology and Rolling Circle Amplification (RCA)/imaging solution. All model assumptions were based on results from previous publications or information from the Ontario prenatal screening population. RESULTS: At an eFTS risk cut-off of ≥1/1000, contingent and reflex cfDNA screening have the same detection rate (DR) (94%) for trisomy 21. Reflex cfDNA screening using RCA/Imaging solution provided the lowest false positive rate and cost. The number of women requiring genetic counselling and diagnostic testing was significantly reduced and women received their cfDNA screening result 9 days sooner compared with the contingent model. While primary cfDNA screening improved the trisomy 21 DR by 3–5%, it was more costly and more women required diagnostic testing. CONCLUSION: Reflex cfDNA screening is the most cost-effective prenatal screening strategy. It can improve the efficiency of prenatal aneuploidy screening by reducing the number of patient visits and providing more timely results. BioMed Central 2020-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7686697/ /pubmed/33228595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03394-w 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
Huang, Tianhua
Gibbons, Clare
Rashid, Shamim
Priston, Megan K.
Bedford, H. Melanie
Mak-Tam, Ellen
Meschino, Wendy S.
Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
title Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
title_full Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
title_fullStr Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
title_full_unstemmed Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
title_short Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
title_sort prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33228595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03394-w
work_keys_str_mv AT huangtianhua prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies
AT gibbonsclare prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies
AT rashidshamim prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies
AT pristonmegank prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies
AT bedfordhmelanie prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies
AT maktamellen prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies
AT meschinowendys prenatalscreeningfortrisomy21acomparativeperformanceandcostanalysisofdifferentscreeningstrategies