Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) for chromosomal aneuploidy involving the analysis of cell-free fetal DNA became commercially available in 2011. The low false-positive rate of NIPT, which reduces unnecessary prenatal invasive diagnostic procedures, has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. We discuss the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by rapid and global dissemination of NIPT. The number of women using NIPT is anticipated to expand, and the number of conditions being tested for will continue to increase as well, raising concerns about the routinization of testing and negative impacts on informed decision making. Ensuring that accurate and balanced information is available to all pregnant women and that access to NIPT is equitable will require policy guidance from regulators, professional societies, and payers. Empirical evidence about stakeholders' perspectives and experiences will continue to be essential in guiding policy development so that advances in NIPT can be used effectively and appropriately to improve prenatal care.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Abramsky L, Hall S, Levitan J, Marteau TM. 1.  2001. What parents are told after prenatal diagnosis of a sex chromosome abnormality: interview and questionnaire study. BMJ 322:463–66 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, Cook-Deegan R, Chandrasekharan S. 2.  2013. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat. Diagn. 33:521–31 [Google Scholar]
  3. Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Taub N, Habiba M. 3.  2006. Patients' perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study. BMJ 333:528 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alderson P. 4.  2001. Prenatal screening, ethics and Down's syndrome: a literature review. Nurs. Ethics 8:360–74 [Google Scholar]
  5. Allyse M, Chandrasekharan S. 5.  2015. Too much, too soon? Commercial provision of noninvasive prenatal screening for subchromosomal abnormalities and beyond. Genet. Med. In press. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. Allyse M, Sayres LC, Goodspeed T, Michie M, Cho MK. 6.  2015. “Don't want no risk and don't want no problems”: public understandings of the risks and benefits of non-invasive prenatal testing in the United States. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 6:5–20 [Google Scholar]
  7. Allyse M, Sayres LC, Havard M, King JS, Greely HT. 7.  et al. 2013. Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat. Diagn. 33:656–61 [Google Scholar]
  8. Allyse M, Sayres LC, King JS, Norton ME, Cho MK. 8.  2012. Cell-free fetal DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy and beyond: clinical integration challenges in the US context. Hum. Reprod. 27:3123–31 [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. Am. Coll. Obstet. Gynecol. Comm. Genet., Soc. Matern.-Fetal Med. Publ. Comm 2012. Committee Opinion Number 545: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet. Gynecol. 120:1532–34 [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. Am. Coll. Obstet. Gynecol. Comm. Pract. Bull 2007. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet. Gynecol. 109:217–27 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ariosa Diagn. 11.  2015. FAQs for healthcare providers. http://www.ariosadx.com/healthcare-professionals/faqs [Google Scholar]
  12. Asch A. 12.  2000. Why I haven't changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis: reflections and refinements. See Ref. 148 234–58
  13. Asch A. 13.  2002. Disability equality and prenatal testing: contradictory or compatible. Fla. State Univ. Law Rev. 30:315 [Google Scholar]
  14. Asch A, Wasserman D. 14.  2005. Where is the sin in synecdoche? Prenatal testing and the parent-child relationship. Quality of Life and Human Difference: Genetic Testing, Health Care, and Disability172–216 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wagner M, Birdir C, Nicolaides KH. 15.  2012. Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal plasma cell-free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 206:322.e1–5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wang E, Struble C, Oliphant A. 16.  et al. 2013. Trisomy 13 detection in the first trimester of pregnancy using a chromosome-selective cell-free DNA analysis method. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 41:21–25 [Google Scholar]
  17. Baer RJ, Currier RJ, Norton ME, Flessel MC, Goldman S. 17.  et al. 2014. Obstetric, perinatal, and fetal outcomes in pregnancies with false-positive integrated screening results. Obstet. Gynecol. 123:603–9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Barot S. 18.  2012. A problem-and-solution mismatch: son preference and sex-selective abortion bans. Guttmacher Policy Rev. 15:218–22 [Google Scholar]
  19. Beamon CJ, Hardisty EE, Harris SC, Vora NL. 19.  2014. A single center's experience with noninvasive prenatal testing. Genet. Med. 16:681–87 [Google Scholar]
  20. Begleiter ML, Finley BE. 20.  2014. Positive predictive value of cell free DNA analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 211:81 [Google Scholar]
  21. Benn P, Borell A, Chiu R, Cuckle HS, Dugoff L. 21.  et al. 2013. Position statement from the Aneuploidy Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat. Diagn. 33:622–29 [Google Scholar]
  22. Benn P, Chapman AR, Erickson K, Defrancesco MS, Wilkins-Haug L. 22.  et al. 2014. Obstetricians' and gynecologists' practice and opinions of expanded carrier testing and non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenat. Diagn. 34:145–52 [Google Scholar]
  23. Benn P, Cuckle HS. 23.  2014. Theoretical performance of non-invasive prenatal testing for chromosome imbalances using counting of cell-free DNA fragments in maternal plasma. Prenat. Diagn. 34:778–83 [Google Scholar]
  24. Benn PA, Ying J, Beazoglou T, Egan JF. 24.  2001. Estimates for the sensitivity and false-positive rates for second trimester serum screening for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 with adjustment for cross-identification and double-positive results. Prenat. Diagn. 21:46–51 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bensend TA, Veach PM, Niendorf KB. 25.  2014. What's the harm? Genetic counselor perceptions of adverse effects of genetics service provision by non-genetics professionals. J. Genet. Couns. 23:48–63 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, Savage MS, Jackson L. 26.  et al. 2013. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet. Med. 15:139–45 [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. BGI 2014. BGI is granted patent in 16 countries for non-invasive prenatal genetic test technology. BGI News Oct. 10. http://www.genomics.cn/en/news/show_news?nid=104192 [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. BGI 2014. FAQs. http://www.niftytest.com/healthcare-providers/faqs
  29. 29. BGI 2014. Introduction to NIFTY™ http://www.niftytest.com/healthcare-providers/intro-to-nifty [Google Scholar]
  30. Bianchi DW, Oepkes D, Ghidini A. 30.  2014. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 1: Should noninvasive DNA testing be the standard screening test for Down syndrome in all pregnant women?. Prenat. Diagn. 34:6–11 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C. 31.  et al. 2014. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 370:799–808 [Google Scholar]
  32. Bianchi DW, Parsa S, Bhatt S, Halks-Miller M, Kurtzman K. 32.  et al. 2015. Fetal sex chromosome testing by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: clinical laboratory experience and biology. Obstet. Gynecol. 125:375–82 [Google Scholar]
  33. Bianchi DW, Wilkins-Haug L. 33.  2014. Integration of noninvasive DNA testing for aneuploidy into prenatal care: What has happened since the rubber met the road?. Clin. Chem. 60:78–87 [Google Scholar]
  34. Blumberg L. 34.  1994. The politics of prenatal testing and selective abortion. Sex. Disabil. 12:135–53 [Google Scholar]
  35. Boardman FK. 35.  2014. The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: the experiences of families living with genetic disease. Soc. Sci. Med. 107:18–25 [Google Scholar]
  36. Boland R, Katzive L. 36.  2008. Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998–2007. Int. Fam. Plan. Perspect. 34:110–20 [Google Scholar]
  37. Bryant L, Hewison JD, Green JM. 37.  2005. Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination in women who have a sibling with Down's syndrome. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 23:181–98 [Google Scholar]
  38. Buchanan A, Sachs A, Toler T, Tsipis J. 38.  2014. NIPT: current utilization and implications for the future of prenatal genetic counseling. Prenat. Diagn. 34:850–57 [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. Cent. Medicare Medicaid Serv 2015. Pregnant women. http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-population/pregnant-women/pregnant-women.html [Google Scholar]
  40. Chandrasekharan S, McGuire AL, Van den Veyver IB. 40.  2014. Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?. Prenat. Diagn. 34:921–26 [Google Scholar]
  41. Chandrasekharan S, Minear MA, Hung A, Allyse M. 41.  2014. Noninvasive prenatal testing goes global. Sci. Transl. Med. 6:231fs15 [Google Scholar]
  42. Chen SJ. 42.  2014. China cracks down on DNA testing. Forbes Mar. 3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/shuchingjeanchen/2014/03/03/china-cracks-down-on-dna-testing-2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Chetty S, Garabedian MJ, Norton ME. 43.  2013. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenat. Diagn. 33:542–46 [Google Scholar]
  44. Choi H, Lau TK, Jiang FM, Chan MK, Zhang HY. 44.  et al. 2013. Fetal aneuploidy screening by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: “false positive” due to confined placental mosaicism. Prenat. Diagn. 33:198–200 [Google Scholar]
  45. Cook-Deegan R, Conley JM, Evans JP, Vorhaus D. 45.  2013. The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets?. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 21:585–88 [Google Scholar]
  46. Cuckle HS, Benn P, Pergament E. 46.  2013. Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome—a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat. Diagn. 33:636–42 [Google Scholar]
  47. Cuckle HS, Malone FD, Wright D, Porter TF, Nyberg DA. 47.  et al. 2008. Contingent screening for Down syndrome—results from the FaSTER trial. Prenat. Diagn. 28:89–94 [Google Scholar]
  48. Das Gupta M, Zhenghua J, Bohua L, Zhenming X, Chung W. 48.  et al. 2003. Why is son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea. J. Dev. Stud. 40:153–87 [Google Scholar]
  49. de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, de Die-Smulders CE, Frints SG, de Wert GM. 49.  2010. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 18:272–77 [Google Scholar]
  50. Deans Z, Newson AJ. 50.  2011. Should non-invasiveness change informed consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis?. Health Care Anal. 19:122–32 [Google Scholar]
  51. Deans Z, Newson AJ. 51.  2012. Ethical considerations for choosing between possible models for using NIPD for aneuploidy detection. J. Med. Ethics 38:614–18 [Google Scholar]
  52. Devaney SA, Palomaki GE, Scott JA, Bianchi DW. 52.  2011. Noninvasive fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 306:627–36 [Google Scholar]
  53. Dickens BM. 53.  2014. Ethical and legal aspects of noninvasive prenatal genetic diagnosis. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 124:181–84 [Google Scholar]
  54. Dixon DP. 54.  2008. Informed consent or institutionalized eugenics? How the medical profession encourages abortion of fetuses with down syndrome. Issues Law Med. 24:3–59 [Google Scholar]
  55. Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y, Bianchi DW, Bergmann C. 55.  et al. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. In press. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.57 [Google Scholar]
  56. Donley G, Hull Berkman SC. 56.  2012. Prenatal whole genome sequencing: Just because we can, should we?. Hastings Cent. Rep. 42:428–40 [Google Scholar]
  57. Driscoll DA, Morgan MA, Schulkin J. 57.  2009. Screening for Down syndrome: changing practice of obstetricians. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 200:459.e1–9 [Google Scholar]
  58. Easley RB, Sanders D, McElrath-Schwartz J, Martin J, Redmond JM. 58.  2006. Anesthetic implications of Jacobsen syndrome. Paediatr. Anaesth. 16:66–71 [Google Scholar]
  59. Edwins J. 59.  2000. From a different planet: women who choose to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis of Down's syndrome. Pract. Midwife 3:21–24 [Google Scholar]
  60. Evans MI, Sonek JD, Hallahan TW, Krantz DA. 60.  2014. Cell-free fetal DNA screening in the United States: a cost analysis of screening strategies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 45:74–83 [Google Scholar]
  61. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP. 61.  1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Faden RR, Chwalow AJ, Orel-Crosby E, Holtzman NA, Chase GA. 62.  et al. 1985. What participants understand about a maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening program. Am. J. Public Health 75:1381–84 [Google Scholar]
  63. Farrell RM, Mercer M, Agatisa P, Smith M, Philipson E. 63.  2014. It's more than a blood test: patients' perspectives on noninvasive prenatal testing. J. Clin. Med. 3:614–31 [Google Scholar]
  64. Farrelly E, Cho MK, Erby L, Roter D, Stenzel A. 64.  et al. 2012. Genetic counseling for prenatal testing: Where is the discussion about disability?. J. Genet. Couns. 21:814–24 [Google Scholar]
  65. Favre R, Moutel G, Duchange N, Vayssière C, Kohler M. 65.  et al. 2008. What about informed consent in first-trimester ultrasound screening for Down syndrome?. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 23:173–84 [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. FDA (Food Drug Admin.) 2014. Draft guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and clinical laboratories: framework for regulatory oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) Guid. Doc. 1739, FDA, Silver Spring, MD. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM416685.pdf [Google Scholar]
  67. Finer L, Fine JB. 67.  2013. Abortion law around the world: progress and pushback. Am. J. Public Health 103:585–89 [Google Scholar]
  68. Finlay JE, Canning D, Po JY. 68.  2012. Reproductive health laws around the world Work. Pap. 96, Program Glob. Demogr. Aging, Harvard Univ. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/program-on-the-global-demography-of-aging/WorkingPapers/2012/PGDA_WP_96.pdf [Google Scholar]
  69. Fletcher R. 69.  2013. Peripheral governance: administering transnational health-care flows. Int. J. Law Context 9:160–91 [Google Scholar]
  70. French HW. 70.  2005. As girls “vanish,” Chinese city battles tide of abortions. New York Times Feb. 17. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/international/asia/17china.html [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. GenomeWeb Staff Report 2013. Shareholder sues Sequenom, alleging illegal “capping” of MaterniT21 Plus price to induce test adoption. GenomeWeb Oct. 3. https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/shareholder-sues-sequenom-alleging-illegal-capping-maternit21-plus-price-induce [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. GenomeWeb Staff Report 2014. BGI suspends clinical NGS-based trisomy testing in China. GenomeWeb, Mar. 14. https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/bgi-suspends-clinical-ngs-based-trisomy-testing-china
  73. 73. GenomeWeb Staff Report 2014. China FDA approves BGI's NGS products. GenomeWeb July 2. https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/china-fda-approves-bgis-ngs-products [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. GenomeWeb Staff Report 2014. Illumina, Sequenom pool NIPT patents, settling IP disputes. GenomeWeb Dec. 3. https://www.genomeweb.com/business-news/illumina-sequenom-pool-nipt-patents-settling-ip-disputes [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. GenomeWeb Staff Report 2015. Berry Genomics lands China FDA approval for NIPT sequencer. GenomeWeb Mar. 31. https://www.genomeweb.com/regulatory-news/berry-genomics-lands-china-fda-approval-nipt-sequencer [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. GenomeWeb Staff Report 2015. Illumina sues Premaitha Health over NIPT IP; Swiss firm adopts Premaitha's Iona CE-IVD test. GenomeWeb Mar. 16. https://www.genomeweb.com/business-news/illumina-sues-premaitha-health-over-nipt-ip-swiss-firm-adopts-premaithas-iona-ce-ivd [Google Scholar]
  77. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. 77.  2015. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 45:249–66 [Google Scholar]
  78. Graff GD, Phillips D, Lei Z, Oh S, Nottenberg C. 78.  et al. 2013. Not quite a myriad of gene patents. Nat. Biotechnol. 31:404–10 [Google Scholar]
  79. Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. 79.  2004. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review Health Technol. Assess 833 Natl. Inst. Health Res., Southampton, UK [Google Scholar]
  80. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG, Monaghan KG, Bajaj K. 80.  et al. 2013. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet. Med. 15:395–98 [Google Scholar]
  81. Guon J, Wilfond BS, Farlow B, Brazg T, Janvier A. 81.  2014. Our children are not a diagnosis: the experience of parents who continue their pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or 18. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 164A:308–18 [Google Scholar]
  82. Hahn S, Huppertz B, Holzgreve W. 82.  2005. Fetal cells and cell free fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood: new tools to study abnormal placentation?. Placenta 26:515–26 [Google Scholar]
  83. Hall A, Bostanci A, Wright CF. 83.  2010. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free fetal DNA technology: applications and implications. Public Health Genomics 13:246–55 [Google Scholar]
  84. Hall S, Abramsky L, Marteau TM. 84.  2003. Health professionals' reports of information given to parents following the prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome anomalies and outcomes of pregnancies: a pilot study. Prenat. Diagn. 23:535–38 [Google Scholar]
  85. Hardisty EE, Vora NL. 85.  2014. Advances in genetic prenatal diagnosis and screening. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 26:634–38 [Google Scholar]
  86. Harrison TA, Doyle DL, McGowan C, Cohen L, Repass E. 86.  et al. 2010. Billing for medical genetics and genetic counseling services: a national survey. J. Genet. Couns. 19:38–43 [Google Scholar]
  87. Hesketh T, Lu L, Xing ZW. 87.  2011. The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 183:1374–77 [Google Scholar]
  88. Horsting JMH, Dlouhy SR, Hanson K, Quaid K, Bai S, Hines KA. 88.  2013. Genetic counselors' experience with cell-free fetal DNA testing as a prenatal screening option for aneuploidy. J. Genet. Couns. 23:377–400 [Google Scholar]
  89. Hurford E, Hawkins A, Hudgins L, Taylor J. 89.  2013. The decision to continue a pregnancy affected by down syndrome: timing of decision and satisfaction with receiving a prenatal diagnosis. J. Genet. Couns. 22:587–93 [Google Scholar]
  90. Hvistendahl M. 90.  2011. Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men New York: PublicAffairs [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. Igenomix 2015. NACE®: Non-Invasive Analysis for Chromosomal Examination http://nace.igenomix.com/wp-content/uploads/NACE-specialists-EN.pdf [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. Illumina 2015. Noninvasive prenatal testing—accurate information for your patients http://www.illumina.com/clinical/reproductive-genetic-health/healthcare-professionals/non-invasive-prenatal-testing.html [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. Illumina 2015. The reassurance of knowing http://www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/applications/reproductive-health/22336_LB_0013_G_Physician_Brochure.pdf [Google Scholar]
  94. Jain A. 94.  2013. Sex selection and abortion in India. BMJ 346:f1957 [Google Scholar]
  95. Jiang K. 95.  2013. Competition intensifies over DNA-based tests for prenatal diagnoses. Nat. Med. 19:381 [Google Scholar]
  96. Juneau K, Bogard PE, Huang S, Mohseni M, Wang ET. 96.  et al. 2014. Microarray-based cell-free DNA analysis improves noninvasive prenatal testing. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 36:282–86 [Google Scholar]
  97. Kaiser AS, Ferris LE, Pastuszak AL, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Johnson J-A. 97.  et al. 2002. The effects of prenatal group genetic counselling on knowledge, anxiety and decisional conflict: issues for nuchal translucency screening. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 22:246–55 [Google Scholar]
  98. Kalantry S. 98.  2014. Replacing myths with facts: sex-selective abortion laws in the United States Cornell Leg. Stud. Res. Pap. 14-34, Cornell Law Sch., Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  99. Kaposy C. 99.  2013. A disability critique of the new prenatal test for Down syndrome. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 23:299–324 [Google Scholar]
  100. Karow J. 100.  2014. Premaitha to launch first CE IVD noninvasive prenatal test in Europe in early 2015. GenomeWeb July 16. https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/premaitha-launch-first-ce-ivd-noninvasive-prenatal-test-europe-early-2015 [Google Scholar]
  101. Karow J. 101.  2014. Sequenom to launch VisibiliT for average-risk pregnancies outside US, expand MaterniT21 Plus. GenomeWeb July 23. https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/sequenom-launch-visibilit-average-risk-pregnancies-outside-us-expand-maternit21 [Google Scholar]
  102. Kay M. 102.  2013. Five Tamil Nadu doctors banned from practice for violating prenatal sex selection law. BMJ 346:f3788 [Google Scholar]
  103. Kazerouni NN, Currier B, Malm L, Riggle S, Hodgkinson C. 103.  et al. 2009. Triple-marker prenatal screening program for chromosomal defects. Obstet. Gynecol. 114:50–58 [Google Scholar]
  104. Kellogg G, Slattery L, Hudgins L, Ormond K. 104.  2014. Attitudes of mothers of children with down syndrome towards noninvasive prenatal testing. J. Genet. Couns. 23:805–13 [Google Scholar]
  105. King JS. 105.  2012. Genetic tests: politics and fetal diagnostics collide. Nature 491:33–34 [Google Scholar]
  106. Kittay EF, Kittay L. 106.  2000. On the expressivity and ethics of selective abortion for disability: conversations with my son. See Ref. 148 165–95
  107. Kitzman JO, Snyder MW, Ventura M, Lewis AP, Qui R. 107.  et al. 2012. Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus. Sci. Transl. Med. 4:137ra76 [Google Scholar]
  108. Kloza EM, Haddow PK, Halliday JV, O'Brien BM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Palomaki GE. 108.  2015. Evaluation of patient education materials: the example of circulating cell free DNA testing for aneuploidy. J. Genet. Couns. 24:259–66 [Google Scholar]
  109. Korenromp MJ, Page-Christiaens GC, van den Bout J, Mulder EJ, Visser GH. 109.  2007. Maternal decision to terminate pregnancy in case of Down syndrome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 196:149.e1–11 [Google Scholar]
  110. Kuppermann M, Nakagawa S, Cohen SR, Dominguez-Pareto I, Shaffer B. 110.  et al. 2011. Attitudes toward prenatal testing and pregnancy termination among a diverse population of parents of children with intellectual disabilities. Prenat. Diagn. 31:1251–58 [Google Scholar]
  111. Lalatta F, Tint GS. 111.  2013. Counseling parents before prenatal diagnosis: Do we need to say more about the sex chromosome aneuploidies?. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 161A:2873–79 [Google Scholar]
  112. Lampret JC, Christianson A. 112.  2007. Reproductive choices made by South African mothers who have a child with Down syndrome. S. Afr. Med. J. 97:515–16 [Google Scholar]
  113. Lau TK, Jiang FM, Stevenson RJ, Lo TK, Chan LW. 113.  et al. 2013. Secondary findings from non-invasive prenatal testing for common fetal aneuploidies by whole genome sequencing as a clinical service. Prenat. Diagn. 33:602–8 [Google Scholar]
  114. Lench N, Barrett A, Fielding S, McKay F, Hill M. 114.  et al. 2013. The clinical implementation of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for single-gene disorders: challenges and progress made. Prenat. Diagn. 33:555–62 [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. LifeCodexx 2014. PraenaTest® now starting at EUR 595 http://lifecodexx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WM-1097-EN-001_PraenaTest_is-now-starting_at_595EUR_Newsletter_July_2014_SCREEN.pdf [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. LifeCodexx 2015. PrenaTest® http://lifecodexx.com/en/expectant-mothers/prenatest [Google Scholar]
  117. Lippman A. 117.  1994. The genetic construction of prenatal testing: choice, consent, or conformity for women?. Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Technology K Rothenberg, E Thompson 9–34 Columbus, OH: Columbus Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  118. Lo YM, Chan KC, Sun H, Chen EZ, Jiang P. 118.  et al. 2010. Maternal plasma DNA sequencing reveals the genome-wide genetic and mutational profile of the fetus. Sci. Transl. Med. 2:61ra91 [Google Scholar]
  119. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL. 119.  et al. 1997. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 350:485–87 [Google Scholar]
  120. Lutgendorf MA, Stoll KA, Knutzen DM, Foglia LM. 120.  2013. Noninvasive prenatal testing: limitations and unanswered questions. Genet. Med. 16:281–85 [Google Scholar]
  121. Madeo AC, Biesecker BB, Brasington C, Erby LH, Peters KF. 121.  2011. The relationship between the genetic counseling profession and the disability community: a commentary. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 155A:1777–85 [Google Scholar]
  122. Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau TM. 122.  1999. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. Prenat. Diagn. 19:808–12 [Google Scholar]
  123. Marchant GE, Campos-Outcalt DE, Lindor RA. 123.  2011. Physician liability: the next big thing for personalized medicine?. Pers. Med. 8:457–67 [Google Scholar]
  124. Marchant GE, Lindor RA. 124.  2013. Personalized medicine and genetic malpractice. Genet. Med. 15:921–22 [Google Scholar]
  125. Markens S. 125.  2013. “It just becomes much more complicated”: Genetic counselors' views on genetics and prenatal testing. New Genet. Soc. 32:302–21 [Google Scholar]
  126. Maron DF. 126.  2014. Virtual doctor visits gaining steam in “geneticist deserts.”. Sci. Am. Apr. 21. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/virtual-doctor-visits-gaining-steam [Google Scholar]
  127. Marteau TM, Dormandy E. 127.  2001. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing?. Am. J. Med. Genet. 106:185–90 [Google Scholar]
  128. Mattina T, Perrotta CS, Grossfeld P. 128.  2009. Jacobsen syndrome. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 4:9 [Google Scholar]
  129. Mazloom AR, Džakula Ž, Oeth P, Wang H, Jensen T. 129.  et al. 2013. Noninvasive prenatal detection of sex chromosomal aneuploidies by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from maternal plasma. Prenat. Diagn. 33:591–97 [Google Scholar]
  130. Mercer MB, Agatisa PK, Farrell RM. 130.  2014. What patients are reading about noninvasive prenatal testing: an evaluation of Internet content and implications for patient-centered care. Prenat. Diagn. 34:986–93 [Google Scholar]
  131. Mikat-Stevens NA, Larson IA, Tarini BA. 131.  2015. Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature. Genet. Med. 17:169–76 [Google Scholar]
  132. Miller PS, Levine RL. 132.  2012. Avoiding genetic genocide: understanding good intentions and eugenics in the complex dialogue between the medical and disability communities. Genet. Med. 15:95–102 [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. Minist. Health Fam. Welf 2005. Annual report on implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. Rep., Minist. Health Fam. Welf., Gov. India, New Delhi [Google Scholar]
  134. Morris JK, Alberman E, Scott C, Jacobs P. 134.  2008. Is the prevalence of Klinefelter syndrome increasing?. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 16:163–70 [Google Scholar]
  135. Nandi A, Deolalikar AB. 135.  2013. Does a legal ban on sex-selective abortions improve child sex ratios? Evidence from a policy change in India. J. Dev. Econ. 103:216–28 [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. Natera 2015. About Panorama http://www.panoramatest.com/healthcare-provider [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. Natera 2015. FAQs. http://www.panoramatest.com/en/expecting-mother/faqs
  138. 138. Natl. Coalit. Health Prof. Educ. Genet 2012. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) factsheet. http://www.nchpeg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=384&Itemid=255 [Google Scholar]
  139. Natoli JL, Ackerman DL, McDermott S, Edwards JG. 139.  2012. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995–2011). Prenat. Diagn. 32:142–53 [Google Scholar]
  140. Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Gil M, Atanasova V, Markova D. 140.  2013. Validation of targeted sequencing of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for non-invasive prenatal detection of aneuploidy of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y. Prenat. Diagn. 33:575–79 [Google Scholar]
  141. Nie J-B. 141.  2011. Non-medical sex-selective abortion in China: ethical and public policy issues in the context of 40 million missing females. Br. Med. Bull. 98:7–20 [Google Scholar]
  142. Norton ME, Rose NC, Benn P. 142.  2013. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: clinical assessment and a plea for restraint. Obstet. Gynecol. 121:847–50 [Google Scholar]
  143. Olumide Olufowote J. 143.  2009. A structurational analysis of informed consent to treatment: (re)productions of contradictory sociohistorical structures in practitioners' interpretive schemes. Qual. Health Res. 19:802–14 [Google Scholar]
  144. Ormond KE, Banuvar S, Daly A, Iris M, Minogue J, Elias S. 144.  2009. Information preferences of high literacy pregnant women regarding informed consent models for genetic carrier screening. Patient Educ. Couns. 75:244–50 [Google Scholar]
  145. Osborne CM, Hardisty E, Devers P, Kaiser-Rogers K, Hayden M. 145.  et al. 2013. Discordant noninvasive prenatal testing results in a patient subsequently diagnosed with metastatic disease. Prenat. Diagn. 33:609–11 [Google Scholar]
  146. Palmer B. 146.  2011. Lonely, tragic, but legally necessary pilgrimages: transnational abortion travel in the 1970s. Can. Hist. Rev. 92:637–64 [Google Scholar]
  147. Parens E, Asch A. 147.  1999. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing reflections and recommendations. Hastings Cent. Rep. 29:S1–S22 [Google Scholar]
  148. Parens E, Asch A. 148.  2000. Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  149. Parens E, Asch A. 149.  2003. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment. Retard Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 9:40–47 [Google Scholar]
  150. Pergament E, Cuckle HS, Zimmermann B, Banjevic M, Sigurjonsson S. 150.  et al. 2014. Single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening in a high-risk and low-risk cohort. Obstet. Gynecol. 124:210–18 [Google Scholar]
  151. Pinghui Z. 151.  2014. Zhejiang man arrested for arranging sex tests in Hong Kong for pregnant mainland women. South China Morning Post Apr. 18. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1486420/zhejiang-man-arrested-arranging-sex-tests-hong-kong-pregnant-mainland [Google Scholar]
  152. Pioro M, Mykitiuk R, Nisker J. 152.  2008. Wrongful birth litigation and prenatal screening. CMAJ 179:1027–30 [Google Scholar]
  153. Plafker T. 153.  2002. Sex selection in China sees 117 boys born for every 100 girls. BMJ 324:1233 [Google Scholar]
  154. Pollack A. 154.  2012. Conflict potential seen in genetic counselors. New York Times July 13. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/business/conflict-potential-seen-in-genetic-counselors-paid-by-testing-companies.html [Google Scholar]
  155. Powell KP, Christianson CA, Cogswell WA, Dave G, Verna A. 155.  et al. 2012. Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing. J. Genet. Couns. 21:469–78 [Google Scholar]
  156. Press NA, Browner CH. 156.  1993. “Collective fictions”: similarities in reasons for accepting maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening among women of diverse ethnic and social class backgrounds. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 8:97–106 [Google Scholar]
  157. Press NA, Browner CH. 157.  1997. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc. Sci. Med. 45:979–89 [Google Scholar]
  158. Rapp R. 158.  1999. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America New York: Psychology Press [Google Scholar]
  159. 159. Ray 2013. Amid “chaos,” FDA's Gutierrez offers insights on agency's regulatory stance on molecular tests. GenomeWeb Feb. 12. https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/amid-chaos-fdas-gutierrez-offers-insights-agencys-regulatory-stance-molecular-te [Google Scholar]
  160. Raz AE. 160.  2004. “Important to test, important to support”: attitudes toward disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel. Soc. Sci. Med. 59:1857–66 [Google Scholar]
  161. Raz AE. 161.  2005. Disability rights, prenatal diagnosis and eugenics: a cross-cultural view. J. Genet. Couns. 14:183–87 [Google Scholar]
  162. Roberts CD, Stough LD, Parrish LH. 162.  2002. The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. J. Spec. Educ. 36:48–55 [Google Scholar]
  163. Rose NC, Lagrave D, Hafen B, Jackson M. 163.  2013. The impact of utilization of early aneuploidy screening on amniocenteses available for training in obstetrics and fetal medicine. Prenat. Diagn. 33:242–44 [Google Scholar]
  164. Sanborn E, Patterson AR. 164.  2014. Disability training in the genetic counseling curricula: Bridging the gap between genetic counselors and the disability community. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 164A:1909–15 [Google Scholar]
  165. Saxton M. 165.  2000. Why members of the disability community oppose prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. See Ref. 148 147–64
  166. Sayres L, Goodspeed T, Allyse M, Cho MK. 166.  2012. In the public interest?. Sci. Transl. Med. 4:144fs23 [Google Scholar]
  167. Seavilleklein V. 167.  2009. Challenging the rhetoric of choice in prenatal screening. Bioethics 23:68–77 [Google Scholar]
  168. Sedgh G, Singh S, Shah IH, Åhman E, Henshaw S. 168.  et al. 2012. Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet 379:625–32 [Google Scholar]
  169. Sequenom Lab. 169.  2015. MaterniT21® PLUS https://laboratories.sequenom.com/providers/maternit21-plus [Google Scholar]
  170. Sequenom Lab. 170.  2015. The science of revolutionizing prenatal care http://flipbooks.sequenom.com/i/356741-mt21plus-microdeletions-essii-4-pg-brochure-070814-final-31-20241r1-0 [Google Scholar]
  171. Sequenom Lab. 171.  2015. The VisibiliTprenatal test https://laboratories.sequenom.com/providers/visibilit [Google Scholar]
  172. Sheets KB, Crissman BG, Feist CD, Sell SL, Johnson L. 172.  et al. 2011. Practice guidelines for communicating a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of down syndrome: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J. Genet. Couns. 20:432–41 [Google Scholar]
  173. Simpson JL, Holzgreve W, Driscoll D. 173.  2012. Genetic counseling and genetic screening. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies SG Gabbe, JR Niebyl, JL Simpson, MB Landon, HL Galan 193–209 Philadelphia: Saunders [Google Scholar]
  174. Simpson JL, Richards D, Otaño L, Driscoll DA. 174.  2012. Prenatal genetic diagnosis. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies SG Gabbe, JR Niebyl, JL Simpson, MB Landon, HL Galan, et al. 210–36 Philadelphia: Saunders [Google Scholar]
  175. Skotko BG. 175.  2005. Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: mothers who continued their pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192:670–77 [Google Scholar]
  176. Skotko BG. 176.  2009. With new prenatal testing, will babies with Down syndrome slowly disappear?. Arch. Dis. Child. 94:823–26 [Google Scholar]
  177. Skotko BG, Kishnani PS, Capone GT. 177.  2009. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: how best to deliver the news. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 149A:2361–67 [Google Scholar]
  178. Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. 178.  2011. Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: perspectives from mothers and fathers. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 155A:2335–47 [Google Scholar]
  179. Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. 179.  2011. Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 155A:2360–69 [Google Scholar]
  180. 180. Soc. Matern.-Fetal Med 2014. SMFM statement: maternal serum cell-free DNA screening in low risk women https://www.smfm.org/publications/157-smfm-statement-maternal-serum-cell-free-dna-screening-in-low-risk-women [Google Scholar]
  181. Song K, Musci TJ, Caughey AB. 181.  2013. Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population. J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. 26:1180–85 [Google Scholar]
  182. Song Y, Liu C, Qi H, Zhang Y, Bian X, Liu J. 182.  2013. Noninvasive prenatal testing of fetal aneuploidies by massively parallel sequencing in a prospective Chinese population. Prenat. Diagn. 33:700–6 [Google Scholar]
  183. 183. Spec. Olymp 2005. Changing attitudes changing the world: the health and health care of people with intellectual disabilities. Policy Pap., Spec. Olymp., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  184. Steinbock B. 184.  2000. Disability, prenatal testing, and selective abortion. See Ref. 148 108–23
  185. Stoll K, Lutgendorf M, Knutzen D, Nielsen PE. 185.  2013. Questioning the costs and benefits of non-invasive prenatal testing. J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. 27:633–34 [Google Scholar]
  186. Swanson A, Ramos E, Snyder H. 186.  2014. Next generation sequencing is the impetus for the next generation of laboratory-based genetic counselors. J. Genet. Couns. 23:647–54 [Google Scholar]
  187. Tercyak KP, Johnson SB, Roberts SF, Cruz AC. 187.  2001. Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Educ. Couns. 43:73–84 [Google Scholar]
  188. Toews M, Caulfield T. 188.  2014. Physician liability and non-invasive prenatal testing. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 36:907–14 [Google Scholar]
  189. 189. Transpar. Mark. Res 2014. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) market (MaterniT21 PLUS, verifi, Harmony, Panorama, NIFTY, PrenaTest and BambniTest)—global industry analysis, size, share, growth, trends and forecast, 2013–2019. Rep., Transpar. Mark. Res., Albany, NY [Google Scholar]
  190. Vahanian SA, Baraa Allaf M, Yeh C, Chavez MR, Kinzler W. 190.  et al. 2013. Patient acceptance of non-invasive testing for fetal aneuploidy via cell-free fetal DNA. J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. 27:106–9 [Google Scholar]
  191. van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E, Newson A, Deans Z. 191.  et al. 2010. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Educ. Couns. 78:24–28 [Google Scholar]
  192. Van Zimmerman E, Nicol D, Gold R, Carbone J, Chandrasekharan S. 192.  et al. 2014. The BRCA patent controversies: an international review of patent disputes. Breast Cancer Gene Research and Medical Practices: Transnational Perspectives in the Time of BRCA S Gibbon, G Joseph, J Mozersky, A zur Nieden, S Palfner 151–74 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  193. Vora NL, O'Brien BM. 193.  2014. Noninvasive prenatal testing for microdeletion syndromes and expanded trisomies. Obstet. Gynecol. 123:1097–99 [Google Scholar]
  194. Wang BT, Chong TP, Boyar FZ, Kopita KA, Ross LP. 194.  et al. 2014. Abnormalities in spontaneous abortions detected by G-banding and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) at a national reference laboratory. Mol. Cytogenet. 7:33 [Google Scholar]
  195. Wapner RJ, Driscoll DA, Simpson JL. 195.  2012. Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial. Prenat. Diagn. 32:396–400 [Google Scholar]
  196. Wertz DC. 196.  2000. Drawing lines: notes for policymakers. See Ref. 148 261–87
  197. Willems PJ, Dierickx H, Vandenakker E, Bekedam D, Segers N. 197.  et al. 2014. The first 3,000 non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT) with the Harmony test in Belgium and the Netherlands. Facts Views Vis. ObGyn 6:7–12 [Google Scholar]
  198. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. 198.  2002. What constitutes “balanced” information in the practitioners' portrayals of Down's syndrome?. Midwifery 18:230–37 [Google Scholar]
  199. Wilson KL, Czerwinski JL, Hoskovec JM, Noblin SJ, Sullivan CM. 199.  et al. 2013. NSGC practice guideline: prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. J. Genet. Couns. 22:4–15 [Google Scholar]
  200. Yao H, Zhang L, Zhang H, Jiang F, Hu H. 200.  et al. 2012. Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing for fetal aneuploidy detects maternal trisomy X. Prenat. Diagn. 32:114–16 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error