1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
  4. Volume 22, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volume 22, 2021

The Emergence and Global Spread of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Abstract

Since its introduction in 2011, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has spread rapidly around the world. It carries numerous benefits but also raises challenges, often related to sociocultural, legal, and economic contexts. This article describes the implementation of NIPT in nine countries, each with its own unique characteristics: Australia, Canada, China and Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Themes covered for each country include the structure of the healthcare system, how NIPT is offered, counseling needs and resources, and cultural and legal context regarding disability and pregnancytermination. Some common issues emerge, including cost as a barrier to equitable access, the complexity of decision-making about public funding, and a shortage of appropriate resources that promote informed choice. Conversely, sociocultural values that underlie the use of NIPT vary greatly among countries. The issues described will become even more challenging as NIPT evolves from a second-tier to a first-tier screening test with expanded use.

Keyword(s): cell-free fetal DNA, cffDNA, disability rights, ELSI, ethical, legal, and social implications, pregnancy termination, public funding
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053
2021-08-31
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/22/1/annurev-genom-083118-015053.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Abacan M, Alsubaie L, Barlow-Stewart K, Caanen B, Cordier C et al. 2019. The global state of the genetic counseling profession. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27:183–97
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Abdalla O, Woods C, de Costa C. 2019. A clinical audit of combined first trimester screening and non-invasive prenatal testing offered to pregnant women in a regional Australian hospital. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 59:157–60
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Abortion Act 1967. c. 87 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/7
  4. 4. 
    Abou-Mrad F, Tarabey L. 2012. Cultural diversity and quality care in Lebanon. J. Clin. Res. Bioeth. 3:140
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Agatisa PK, Mercer MB, Mitchum A, Coleridge MB, Farrell RM. 2017. Patient-centered obstetric care in the age of cell-free fetal DNA prenatal screening. J. Patient Exp. 5:26–33
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Aggarwal S, Phadke SR. 2015. Medical genetics and genomic medicine in India: current status and opportunities ahead. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 3:160–71
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Ahmed S, Yi H, Dong D, Zhu J, Jafri H et al. 2018. Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 26:495–504
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Alberry M, Maddocks D, Jones M, Abdel Hadi M, Abdel-Fattah S et al. 2007. Free fetal DNA in maternal plasma in anembryonic pregnancies: confirmation that the origin is the trophoblast. Prenat. Diagn. 27:415–18
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Allyse M, Aypar U, Bonhomme N, Darilek S, Dougherty M et al. 2017. Offering prenatal screening in the age of genomic medicine: a practical guide. J. Women's Health 26:755–61
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M et al. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int. J. Women's Health 7:113–26
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Allyse M, Sayres LC, Goodspeed T, Michie M, Cho MK. 2015.. “ Don't want no risk and don't want no problems”: public understandings of the risks and benefits of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 6:5–20
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Allyse M, Sayres LC, King JS, Norton ME, Cho MK. 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]
  13. 13. 
    Am. Coll. Obstet. Gynecol 2020. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG Practice Bulletin summary, number 226. Obstet. Gynecol. 136:e48–69
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Ammar W. 2003. The challenging context. Health System and Reform in Lebanon1–10 Beirut: Entrep. Univ. Études Pub.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Arawi T, Nassar A. 2011. Prenatally diagnosed foetal malformations and termination of pregnancy: the case of Lebanon. Dev. World. Bioeth. 11:40–47
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon LCY, Rezende JC, Nicolaides KH. 2013. Fetal fraction in maternal plasma cell-free DNA at 11–13 weeks’ gestation: relation to maternal and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 41:26–32
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Audibert F, De Bie I, Johnson J-A, Okun N, Wilson RD et al. 2017.. No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG guideline: update on prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, fetal anomalies, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 39:805–17
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Aust. Bur. Stat 2020. Births, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/births-australia
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Ayres AC, Whitty JA, Ellwood DA 2014. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 54:412–17
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM, Snijders RJM. 2012. Low uptake of the combined test in the Netherlands – which factors contribute?. Prenat. Diagn. 32:1305–12
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Birko S, Ravitsky V, Dupras C, Le Clerc-Blain J, Lemoine ME et al. 2019. The value of non-invasive prenatal testing: preferences of Canadian pregnant women, their partners, and health professionals regarding NIPT use and access. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 19:22
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Blondel B, Zein A, Ghosn N, Du Mazaubrun C, Bréart G. 2006. Collecting population-based perinatal data efficiently: the example of the Lebanese National Perinatal Survey. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 20:416–24
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Bowman-Smart H, Savulescu J, Gyngell C, Mand C, Delatycki MB. 2020. Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues. Prenat. Diagn. 40:398–407
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Bowman-Smart H, Savulescu J, Mand C, Gyngell C, Pertile MD et al. 2019.. ‘ Small cost to pay for peace of mind’: women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 59:649–55
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Bunnik EM, Kater-Kuipers A, Galjaard R-JH, de Beaufort ID. 2020. Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access. J. Med. Ethics 46:194–98
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Canick JA, Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Haddow JE. 2013. The impact of maternal plasma DNA fetal fraction on next generation sequencing tests for common fetal aneuploidies. Prenat. Diagn. 33:667–74
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    CBS (Stat. Neth.) 2019. Population in 2018. CBS (Statistics Netherlands) https://longreads.cbs.nl/trends19-eng/society/figures/population
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Census Stat. Dep 2020. Population estimates. Census and Statistics Department https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp150.jsp?tableID=004&ID=0&productType=8
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Cent. Bur. Stat 2019. Applications for pregnancy termination in 2017–2018 Rep., Cent. Bur. Stat . Jerusalem: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2019/394/05_19_394b.pdf (in Hebrew)
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Cent. Bur. Stat 2019. Population of Israel on the eve of 2020 Press Release, Dec. 31, Cent. Bur. Stat Jerusalem: https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/Pages/2019/Population-of-Israel-on-the-Eve-of-2020.aspx
  31. 31. 
    Cent. Genet. Educ 2018. Fact sheet 27: non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) Fact Sheet, Cent. Genet. Educ. Sydney:
  32. 32. 
    Chan YM, Leung TN, Leung TY, Fung TY, Chan LW, Lau TK. 2006. The utility assessment of Chinese pregnant women towards the birth of a baby with Down syndrome compared to a procedure-related miscarriage. Prenat. Diagn. 26:819–24
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Chan YM, Sahota DS, Leung TY, Choy KW, Chan OK, Lau TK. 2009. Chinese women's preferences for prenatal diagnostic procedure and their willingness to trade between procedures. Prenat. Diagn. 29:1270–76
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Cheng YKY, Leung WC, Leung TY, Choy KW, Chiu RWK et al. 2018. Women's preference for non-invasive prenatal DNA testing versus chromosomal microarray after screening for Down syndrome: a prospective study. BJOG 125:451–59
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    China Daily 2018. National action plan on disability prevention (2016–2020). China Daily Aug. 13. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/regional/2018-08/13/content_36769371.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Chitty LS, Wright D, Hill M, Verhoef TI, Daley R et al. 2016. Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units. BMJ 354:i3426
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Crombag NMTH, Vellinga YE, Kluijfhout SA, Bryant LD, Ward PA et al. 2014. Explaining variation in Down's syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14:437
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Cutiongco-de la Paz EM, Chung BH-Y, Faradz SMH, Thong M-K, David-Padilla C et al. 2019. Training in clinical genetics and genetic counseling in Asia. Am. J. Med. Genet. C 181:177–86
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Dan. Trade Union Dev. Agency 2020. Labour market profile 2020: Lebanon Rep., Dan. Trade Union Dev. Agency Copenhagen:
  40. 40. 
    Dash P, Puri RD, Kotecha U, Bijarnia S, Lall M, Verma IC. 2014. Using noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidies in a developing country: lessons learnt. J. Foetal Med. 1:131–35
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    de Graaf G, Buckley F, Skotko BG. 2021. Estimation of the number of people with Down syndrome in Europe. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 29:402–10
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    de Groot-van der Mooren MD, Tamminga S, Oepkes D, Weijerman ME, Cornel MC. 2018. Older mothers and increased impact of prenatal screening: stable livebirth prevalence of trisomy 21 in the Netherlands for the period 2000–2013. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 26:157–65
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Deans Z, Hill M, Chitty LS, Lewis C. 2013. Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 21:713–18
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Dep. Health 2003. Our inheritance, our future: realising the potential of genetics in the NHS White Pap., Dep. Health London:
  45. 45. 
    Dery AM, Carmi R, Vardi IS. 2008. Attitudes toward the acceptability of reasons for pregnancy termination due to fetal abnormalities among prenatal care providers and consumers in Israel. Prenat. Diagn. 28:518–24
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Dhar M, Payal YS, Krishna V 2018. The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act and its implication on advancement of ultrasound in anaesthesiology; time to change mindsets rather than laws. Indian J. Anaesth. 62:930–33
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Dickinson JE, de Costa CM. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing: the new era in reproductive medicine. Med. J. Aust. 203:57–58
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Dugoff L, Norton ME, Kuller JA. 2016. The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 215:B2–9
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Dupras C, Birko S, Affdal AO, Haidar H, Lemoine M-E, Ravitsky V. 2020. Governing the futures of non-invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of social acceptability using the Delphi method. Soc. Sci. Med In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112930
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Equality Act 2010. c. 15 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
  51. 51. 
    Farrell RM, Pierce M, Collart C, Edmonds BT, Chien E et al. 2020. Making the most of the first prenatal visit: the challenge of expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limited clinical encounter time. Prenat. Diagn. 40:1265–71
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Fathallah Z. 2019. Moral work and the construction of abortion networks: women's access to safe abortion in Lebanon. Health Hum. Rights 21:21–31
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Gadsboll K, Petersen OB, Gatinois V, Strange H, Jacobsson B et al. 2020. Current use of noninvasive prenatal testing in Europe, Australia and the USA: a graphical presentation. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 99:722–30
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Gammon BL, Jaramillo C, Riggan KA, Allyse M. 2020. Decisional regret in women receiving high risk or inconclusive prenatal cell-free DNA screening results. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 33:1412–18
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Gammon BL, Kraft SA, Michie M, Allyse M. 2016.. “ I think we've got too many tests!”: prenatal providers’ reflections on ethical and clinical challenges in the practice integration of cell-free DNA screening. Ethics Med. Public Health 2:334–42
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Genetic Information Law 2000. Law 5761-2000 (Israel). https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/GeneticInformationLaw.pdf
  57. 57. 
    Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. 2017. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 50:302–14
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Gil MM, Galeva S, Jani J, Konstantinidou L, Akolekar R et al. 2019. Screening for trisomies by cfDNA testing of maternal blood in twin pregnancy: update of the Fetal Medicine Foundation results and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstetr. Gynecol. 53:734–42
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Grand View Res 2021. Non invasive prenatal testing market size, share and trends analysis report by gestation period, by risk type, by method, by technology, by product, by end-use, and segment forecasts, 2021–2028 Rep. GVR-1-68038-310-2, Grand View Res San Francisco: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/noninvasive-prenatal-testing-market
  60. 60. 
    Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Berkenstet M, Pras E. 2015. The limited effect of information on Israeli pregnant women at advanced maternal age who decide to undergo amniocentesis. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 4:23
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Haidar H, Dupras C, Ravitsky V. 2016. Non-invasive prenatal testing: review of ethical, legal and social implications. BioéthiqueOnline 5: https://doi.org/10.7202/1044264ar
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Haidar H, Rispler-Chaim V, Hung A, Chandrasekharan S, Ravitsky V. 2015. Noninvasive prenatal testing: implications for Muslim communities. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 6:94–105
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Haidar H, Vanstone M, Laberge A-M, Bibeau G, Ghulmiyyah L, Ravitsky V. 2018. Cross-cultural perspectives on decision making regarding noninvasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of Lebanon and Quebec. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 9:99–111
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Haidar H, Vanstone M, Laberge A-M, Bibeau G, Ghulmiyyah L, Ravitsky V. 2020. Implementation challenges for an ethical introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals’ views from Lebanon and Quebec. BMC Med. Ethics 21:15
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Hashiloni-Dolev Y. 2007. A Life (Un)Worthy of Living: Reproductive Genetics in Israel and Germany Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  66. 66. 
    Hayward J, Chitty LS. 2018. Beyond screening for chromosomal abnormalities: advances in non-invasive diagnosis of single gene disorders and fetal exome sequencing. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 23:94–101
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Hessini L. 2007. Abortion and Islam: policies and practice in the Middle East and North Africa. Reprod. Health Matters 15:75–84
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Holroyd EE. 2003. Chinese cultural influences on parental caregiving obligations toward children with disabilities. Qual. Health Res. 13:4–19
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Hosp. Auth 2019. Tech breakthrough brings two new prenatal tests. HASLink 106: https://www3.ha.org.hk/ehaslink/issue106/en/cover-02.html
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Hui L, Barclay J, Poulton A, Hutchinson B, Halliday JL. 2018. Prenatal diagnosis and socioeconomic status in the non-invasive prenatal testing era: a population-based study. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 58:404–10
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Hui L, Bianchi DW. 2017. Noninvasive prenatal DNA testing: the vanguard of genomic medicine. Annu. Rev. Med. 68:459–72
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Hui L, Hutchinson B, Poulton A, Halliday J. 2017. Population-based impact of noninvasive prenatal screening on screening and diagnostic testing for fetal aneuploidy. Genet. Med. 19:1338–45
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Hui L, Teoh M, da Silva, Costa F, Ramsay P, Palma-Dias R et al. 2015. Clinical implementation of cell-free DNA-based aneuploidy screening: perspectives from a national audit. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 45:10–15
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Ibrahim IA. 1997. Some evidence for the truth of Islam. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam5–40 Houston: Darussalam
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Johnson K, Kelley J, Saxton V, Walker SP, Hui L. 2017. Declining invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: a comparison of tertiary hospital and national data from 2012 to 2015. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 57:152–56
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    King JS. 2012. Politics and fetal diagnostics collide. Nature 491:33–34
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Knoema 2019. India - number of births. Knoema https://knoema.com/atlas/India/topics/Demographics/Fertility/Number-of-births
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Kou KO, Poon CF, Tse WC, Mak SL, Leung KY. 2015. Knowledge and future preference of Chinese women in a major public hospital in Hong Kong after undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for positive aneuploidy screening: a questionnaire survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15:199
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Lau W, Hui E, Lai F 2013. Ethical discussion: termination of pregnancy after prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip in a Chinese population in Hong Kong. Hong Kong J. Gynaecol. Obstet. Midwifery 13:74–80
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Lemoine M-E, Ravitsky V 2020. The Down Syndrome Information Act and “mere difference”: redefining the scope of prenatal testing conversations?. In Disability, Health, Law and Bioethicsed. IG Cohen, C Shachar, A Silvers, MA Steinpp. 64–76 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Leung W, Lau E, Lau W, Tang R, Wong S et al. 2008. Rapid aneuploidy testing (knowing less) versus traditional karyotyping (knowing more) for advanced maternal age: What would be missed, who should decide?. Hong Kong Med. J. 14:6–13
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Lewis C, Hill M, Chitty LS. 2017. Offering non-invasive prenatal testing as part of routine clinical service. Can high levels of informed choice be maintained?. Prenat. Diagn. 37:1130–37
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Lewis C, Hill M, Skirton H, Chitty LS. 2016. Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24:809–16
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Li G, Chandrasekharan S, Allyse M. 2017.. “ The top priority is a healthy baby”: narratives of health, disability, and abortion in online pregnancy forum discussions in the US and China. J. Genet. Couns. 26:32–39
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Lindquist A, Poulton A, Halliday J, Hui L. 2018. Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 51:487–92
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Liu Y, Liu H, He Y, Xu W, Ma Q et al. 2020. Clinical performance of non-invasive prenatal served as a first-tier screening test for trisomy 21, 18, 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy in a pilot city in China. Hum. Genom. 14:21
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Lo YMD, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL et al. 1997. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 350:485–87
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Lo YMD, Tsui NBY, Chiu RWK, Lau TK, Leung TN et al. 2007. Plasma placental RNA allelic ratio permits noninvasive prenatal chromosomal aneuploidy detection. Nat. Med. 13:218–23
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Madan K, Breuning MH. 2014. Impact of prenatal technologies on the sex ratio in India: an overview. Genet. Med. 16:425–32
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Manikandan K, Seshadri S. 2017. Down syndrome screening in India: Are we there yet?. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India 67:393–99
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Marcon AR, Ravitsky V, Caulfield T. 2021. Discussing non-invasive prenatal testing on Reddit: the benefits, the concerns, and the comradery. Prenat. Diagn. 41:100–10
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    MarketsandMarkets Res 2019. Non invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) market by product (consumables, reagent, ultrasound, NGS, PCR, microarray), services, method (cfDNA, biochemical markers), application (aneuploidy, microdeletion) and end-user (hospital, labs)—global forecasts to 2024 Rep., MarketsandMarkets Res., Hadapsar India: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/non-invasive-prenatal-testing-market-145607690.html
  93. 93. 
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. 2019. Births: final data for 2018 Rep., Natl. Cent. Health Stat Hyattsville, MD:
  94. 94. 
    Massa JD, Arora V, Lallar M, Bijarnia S, Puri RD, Verma IC. 2020. Current status of noninvasive prenatal testing and counselling considerations: an Indian perspective. J. Foetal Med. 7:9–16
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Maxwell SJ, Dickinson JE, O'Leary P. 2015. Knowledge of non-invasive prenatal testing among pregnant women. Med. J. Aust. 203:76
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Maxwell SJ, O'Leary P 2018. Public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy – it's time. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 58:385–87
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Maxwell SJ, O'Leary P, Dickinson JE, Suthers GK 2017. Diagnostic performance and costs of contingent screening models for trisomy 21 incorporating non-invasive prenatal testing. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 57:432–39
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    McLennan A, Palma-Dias R, da Silva Costa F, Meagher S, Nisbet DL, Scott F 2016. Noninvasive prenatal testing in routine clinical practice—an audit of NIPT and combined first-trimester screening in an unselected Australian population. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 56:22–28
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Med. Serv. Advis. Comm 2018. Stakeholder meeting minutes - final: non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common trisomies (21, 18 and 13) Meet. Minutes, Aust. Gov. Canberra:
  100. 100. 
    Med. Serv. Advis. Comm 2019. Public summary document: application no. 1492 – non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 Public Summ. Doc., Aust. Gov. Canberra:
  101. 101. 
    Meredith S, Kaposy C, Miller VJ, Allyse M, Chandrasekharan S, Michie M. 2016. Impact of the increased adoption of prenatal cfDNA screening on non-profit patient advocacy organizations in the United States. Prenat. Diagn. 36:714–19
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Meticulous Res 2020. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) market by product and solution (consumables, systems, software), method (ultrasound screening, cell free DNA test), application (trisomy, microdeletions, monosomy), and end-user (diagnostic labs) - global forecast to 2027. Rep. MRHC - 104369, Meticulous Res., Wakad India: https://www.meticulousresearch.com/product/non-invasive-prenatal-testing-market-5068
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Michie M, Kraft SA, Minear MA, Ryan RR, Allyse MA. 2016. Informed decision-making about prenatal cfDNA screening: an assessment of written materials. Ethics Med. Public Health 2:362–71
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Minear MA, Alessi S, Allyse M, Michie M, Chandrasekharan S. 2015. Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing: current and emerging ethical, legal, and social issues. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 16:369–98
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Mozersky J, Ravitsky V, Rapp R, Michie M, Chandrasekharan S, Allyse M. 2017. Toward an ethically sensitive implementation of noninvasive prenatal screening in the global context. Hastings Cent. Rep. 47:41–49
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Murdoch B, Caulfield T. 2020. Non-invasive prenatal screening: navigating the relevant legal norms. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 42:1271–75
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Nandi A, Deolalikar AB. 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]
  108. 108. 
    Ng VK, Chan AL, Lau W, Leung W. 2020. Second tier non-invasive prenatal testing in a regional prenatal diagnosis service unit: a retrospective analysis and literature review. Hong Kong Med. J. 26:10–18
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Ngan OMY, Yi H, Bryant L, Sahota DS, Chan OYM, Ahmed S 2020. Parental expectations of raising a child with disability in decision-making for prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy: a mixed methods study. Patient Educ. Couns. 103:2373–83
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Nov-Klaiman T, Raz AE, Hashiloni-Dolev Y. 2019. Attitudes of Israeli parents of children with Down syndrome toward non-invasive prenatal screening and the scope of prenatal testing. J. Genet. Couns. 28:1119–29
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Nshimyumukiza L, Beaumont J-A, Duplantie J, Langlois S, Little J et al. 2018. Cell-free DNA–based non-invasive prenatal screening for common aneuploidies in a Canadian province: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 40:48–60
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Nshimyumukiza L, Menon S, Hina H, Rousseau F, Reinharz D. 2018. Cell-free DNA noninvasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy versus conventional screening: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Clin. Genet. 94:3–21
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Nuffield Counc. Bioeth 2017. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues Rep., Nuffield Counc. Bioeth London:
  114. 114. 
    Oepkes D, Page-Christiaens GC, Bax CJ, Bekker MN, Bilardo CM et al. 2016. Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part I—clinical impact. Prenat. Diagn. 36:1083–90
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Off. Natl. Stat 2019. Vital statistics in the UK: births, deaths and marriages Data Set, Off. Natl. Stat London: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables
  116. 116. 
    Palomaki GE, Kloza EM. 2018. Prenatal cell-free DNA screening test failures: a systematic review of failure rates, risks of Down syndrome, and impact of repeat testing. Genet. Med. 20:1312–23
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Palomaki GE, Knight GJ, Ashwood ER, Best RG, Haddow JE. 2013. Screening for Down syndrome in the United States: results of surveys in 2011 and 2012. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 137:921–26
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    PEGASUS 2020. About the PEGASUS-2 project. PEGASUS http://pegasus-pegase.ca
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Penal Law Amendment (Interruption of Pregnancy) 1977.Law 5737–1977 (Israel)
  120. 120. 
    Phadke SR, Puri RD, Ranganath P. 2017. Prenatal screening for genetic disorders: suggested guidelines for the Indian scenario. Indian J. Med. Res. 146:689–99
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Prainsack B, Firestine O. 2006.. ‘ Science for survival’: biotechnology regulation in Israel. Sci. Public Policy 33:33–46
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Prenat. Screen. Ont 2019. Non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenatal Screening Ontario https://www.prenatalscreeningontario.ca/en/pso/about-prenatal-screening/non-invasive-prenatal-testing.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Public Health Found. India 2010. Implementation of the PCPNDT Act in India: perspectives and challenges Rep., Public Health Found India, New Delhi:
  124. 124. 
    Qiu J. 2019. Buying reassurance: uptake of non-invasive prenatal testing among pregnant women of advanced maternal age in China. Health Risk. Soc. 21:122–40
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    R. Aust. N. Z. Coll. Obstet. Gynaecol 2019. Prenatal screening for fetal genetic or structural conditions Rep., R. Aust. N. Z. Coll. Obstet Gynaecol., Sydney:
  126. 126. 
    R. Aust. N. Z. Coll. Obstet. Gynaecol., Hum. Genet. Soc. Australas 2018. Prenatal screening and diagnostic testing for fetal chromosomal and genetic conditions Rep., R. Aust. N. Z. Coll. Obstet. Gynaecol Sydney:
  127. 127. 
    R. Coll. Pathol. Australas 2019. Position statement: non-invasive prenatal testing Rep., R. Coll. Pathol. Australas Sydney:
  128. 128. 
    Ravitsky V. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): identifying key clinical, ethical, social, legal and policy issues Backgr. Pap., Nuffield Counc. Bioeth London:
  129. 129. 
    Ravitsky V. 2017. The shifting landscape of prenatal testing: between reproductive autonomy and public health. Hastings Cent. Rep. 47:S34–40
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Raz A. 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]
  131. 131. 
    Raz A 2018. Reckless or pioneering? Public health genetics services in Israel. Bioethics and Biopolitics in Israel: Socio-Legal, Political, and Empirical Analysis H Boas, Y Hashiloni-Dolev, N Davidovitch, D Filc, SJ Lavi 223–40 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Reddy KS, Patel V, Jha P, Paul VK, Kumar AKS, Dandona L. 2011. Towards achievement of universal health care in India by 2020: a call to action. Lancet 377:760–68
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Reingold RB, Gostin LO. 2018. Banning abortion in cases of Down syndrome: important lessons for advances in genetic diagnosis. JAMA 319:2375–76
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Remennick L. 2006. The quest for the perfect baby: Why do Israeli women seek prenatal genetic testing?. Sociol. Health Illn. 28:21–53
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Richmond Z, Fleischer R, Chopra M, Pinner J, D'Souza M et al. 2017. The impact of non-invasive prenatal testing on anxiety in women considered at high or low risk for aneuploidy after combined first trimester screening. Prenat. Diagn. 37:975–82
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Robson SJ, Hui L. 2015. National decline in invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures in association with uptake of combined first trimester and cell-free DNA aneuploidy screening. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 55:507–10
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Sahota DS. 2015. Noninvasive testing for fetal aneuploidy: a Hong Kong perspective. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 6:106–10
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Samura O. 2020. Update on noninvasive prenatal testing: a review based on current worldwide research. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 46:1246–54
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Sheets KB, Best RG, Brasington CK, Will MC. 2011. Balanced information about Down syndrome: What is essential?. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 155A:1246–57
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Sher C, Romano-Zelekha O, Green MS, Shohat T. 2003. Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 120A:418–22
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Sher C, Romano-Zelekha O, Green MS, Shohat T. 2004. Utilization of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Moslem women: a national survey. Clin. Genet. 65:278–83
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, Lewis C, Chitty LS. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: a systematic review of Internet advertising to potential users by commercial companies and private health providers. Prenat. Diagn. 35:1167–75
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Smith SK, Cai A, Wong M, Sousa MS, Peate M et al. 2018. Improving women's knowledge about prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome – development and acceptability of a low literacy decision aid. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18:499
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Srivasatava M, Srivastava A. 2018. Non invasive prenatal testing- Indian scenario. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2:2846–49
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Stat. Can 2020. Live births, by month. Statistics Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310041501
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Statista 2020. Number of births per year in China from 2009 to 2019. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/250650/number-of-births-in-china
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    Stern S, Hacohen N, Meiner V, Yagel S, Zenvirt S et al. 2021. Universal chromosomal microarray analysis reveals high proportion of copy-number variants in low-risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol 57:813–20
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Struble CA, Syngelaki A, Oliphant A, Song K, Nicolaides KH. 2014. Fetal fraction estimate in twin pregnancies using directed cell-free DNA analysis. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 35:199–203
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Sun L, Liang B, Zhu L, Shen Y, He L. 2019. The rise of the genetic counseling profession in China. Am. J. Med. Genet. C 181C:170–76
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    Taylor-Phillips S, Freeman K, Geppert J, Agbebiyi A, Uthman OA et al. 2016. Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 6:e010002
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    Thomas GM, Rothman BK. 2016. Keeping the backdoor to eugenics ajar?: disability and the future of prenatal screening. AMA J. Ethics 18:406–15
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152. 
    Thomas J, Harraway J, Kirchhoffer D. 2021. Non-invasive prenatal testing: clinical utility and ethical concerns about recent advances. Med. J. Aust. 214:168–70.e1
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    Toews M, Caulfield T. 2014. Physician liability and non-invasive prenatal testing. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 36:907–14
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 154. 
    UK Natl. Screen. Comm 2004. National Down's Syndrome Screening Programme for England: A Handbook for Staff London: UK Natl. Screen. Comm. Programmes Dir.
  155. 155. 
    UK Natl. Screen. Comm 2015. Note of the meeting held on the 19 November 2015 at Goodenough College- London Meet. Minutes, UK Natl. Screen. Comm London: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8eopFA9myQefk9EalVQLWs5RlFBSmlUdzNvaUxuS2FhdWV2VWJaSTZ2YXlTdVZDYX-dyNDA
  156. 156. 
    UK Natl. Screen. Comm 2016. The UK NSC recommendation on Down's syndrome screening in pregnancy. UK National Screening Committee https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/downs
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 157. 
    UK Natl. Screen. Comm 2020. UK National Screening Committee. UK National Screening Committee https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/uk-national-screening-committee-uk-nsc
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 158. 
    UN 2006. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty, UN New York:
  159. 159. 
    van der Meij KRM, de Groot-van Mooren M, Carbo EWS, Pieters MJ, Rodenburg W et al. 2021. Uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening after the introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test: a national population-based register study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14091
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  160. 160. 
    van der Meij KRM, Sistermans EA, Macville MV, Stevens SJ, Bax CJ et al. 2019. TRIDENT-2: national implementation of genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing as a first-tier screening test in the Netherlands. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105:1091–101
     [Google Scholar]
  161. 161. 
    van El CG, Pieters T, Cornel M. 2012. Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands. J. Community Genet. 3:79–89
     [Google Scholar]
  162. 162. 
    van Schendel RV, Kater-Kuipers A, van Vliet-Lachotzki EH, Dondorp WJ, Cornel MC, Henneman L. 2017. What do parents of children with Down syndrome think about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)?. J. Genet. Couns. 26:522–31
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 163. 
    van Schendel RV, van El CG, Pajkrt E, Henneman L, Cornel MC. 2017. Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17:670
     [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    Vanstone M, Cernat A, Nisker J, Schwartz L. 2018. Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions. BMC Med. Ethics 19:27
     [Google Scholar]
  165. 165. 
    Verma IC. 2014. Noninvasive prenatal testing: the Indian perspective. J. Foetal Med. 1:113–18
     [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Verma IC, Dua-Puri R, Bijarnia-Mahay S. 2017. ACMG 2016 update on noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: implications for India. J. Foetal Med. 4:1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    Verma IC, Lallar M, Arora V. 2019. Looking back at fetal medicine in India in 2018, and looking forward to 2019. J. Foetal Med. 6:47–50
     [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Verma IC, Puri R, Venkataswamy E, Tayal T, Nampoorthiri S et al. 2018. Single nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal testing: experience in India. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India 68:462–70
     [Google Scholar]
  169. 169. 
    World Bank 2020. Adjusted net national income per capita (current US$) - India. World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?locations=IN
    [Google Scholar]
  170. 170. 
    Wuhan Munic. Health Comm 2019. Wuhan city maternal and infant health improvement project. Wuhan Municipal Health Commission http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/ztzl_28/jkzx/202004/t20200430_1201572.shtml
    [Google Scholar]
  171. 171. 
    Xu H, Li J, Han J, Gao F. 2018. A government-sponsored application of non-invasive prenatal test in prenatal screening and diagnosis. Chin. J. Birth Health Hered. 1:62–63
     [Google Scholar]
  172. 172. 
    Yau AH, Zayts OA. 2014.. ‘ I don't want to see my children suffer after birth’: the ‘risk of knowing’ talk and decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome in Hong Kong. Health Risk Soc. 16:259–76
     [Google Scholar]
  173. 173. 
    Yi H, Hallowell N, Griffiths S, Leung TY. 2013. Motivations for undertaking DNA sequencing-based non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: a qualitative study with early adopter patients in Hong Kong. PLOS ONE 8:e81794
     [Google Scholar]
  174. 174. 
    Yi H, Yung Ngan OM, Griffiths S, Sahota D 2015. Ethical concerns in the implementation of DNA sequencing-based noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy among obstetric professionals in Hong Kong. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 6:81–93
     [Google Scholar]
  175. 175. 
    Zhu J, Dong D 2018. From quality control to informed choice: understanding “good births” and prenatal genetic testing in contemporary urban China. Handbook of Genomics, Health and Society S Gibbon, B Prainsack, S Hilgartner, J Lamoreaux 47–54 Abingdon, UK: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  176. 176. 
    Zhu W, Ling X, Shang W, Huang J. 2020. The knowledge, attitude, practices, and satisfaction of non-invasive prenatal testing among Chinese pregnant women under different payment schemes: a comparative study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:7187
     [Google Scholar]
  177. 177. 
    Zlotogora J. 2014. Genetics and genomic medicine in Israel. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 2:85–94
     [Google Scholar]
  178. 178. 
    Zlotogora J, Haklai Z, Leventhal A. 2007. Utilization of prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancies for the prevention of Down syndrome in Israel. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 9:499–503
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053
Loading
The Emergence and Global Spread of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 22, 309 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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