4.6 Article

The clinical utility of DNA-based screening for fetal aneuploidy by primary obstetrical care providers in the general pregnancy population

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 778-786

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.194

关键词

cell free DNA; clinical utility; Down syndrome; patient education; prenatal screening

资金

  1. Natera
  2. Women & Infants Hospital
  3. Sequenom (San Diego, CA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the clinical utility of cell-free DNA (cfDNA)based screening for aneuploidies offered through primary obstetrical care providers to a general pregnancy population. Methods: Patient educational materials were developed and validated and providers were trained. Serum was collected for reflexive testing of cfDNA failures. Providers and patients were surveyed concerning knowledge, decision making, and satisfaction. Pregnancy outcome was determined by active or passive ascertainment. Results: Between September 2014 and July 2015, 72 providers screened 2,691 women. The five largest participating practices increased uptake by 8 to 40%. Among 2,681 reports, 16 women (0.6%) were screen-positive for trisomy 21, 18, or 13; all saw genetic professionals. Twelve were confirmed (positive predictive value (PPV), 75%; 95% CI, 48-93%) and four were false-positives (0.15%). Of 150 failures (5.6%), 79% had a negative serum or subsequent cfDNA test; no aneuploidies were identified. Of 100 women surveyed, 99 understood that testing was optional, 96 had their questions answered, and 95 received sufficient information. Pretest information was provided by the physician/certified nurse midwife (55) or office nurse/educator (40); none was provided by genetic professionals. Conclusion: This first clinical utility study of cfDNA screening found higher uptake rates, patient understanding of basic concepts, and easy incorporation into routine obstetrical practices. There were no reported cases of aneuploidy among cfDNA test failures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据