
pmid: 25732593
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) through the analysis of cell free (cf)DNA is revolutionizing prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Current methods used in clinical practice include shotgun massively parallel sequencing (s-MPS); targeted (t-MPS); and an approach that takes advantage of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) differences between mother and fetus. Efficacy of cfDNA testing for the common autosomal trisomies far exceeds that of conventional screening. Depending on the methodology used, reasons for discordancy between cfDNA results and fetal karyotype can include true fetal mosaicism, confined placental mosaicism, presence of a maternal karyotype abnormality, insufficient counting due to low fetal fraction, and a vanishing twin. Among the possible cfDNA strategies a Primary test has the highest performance but is expensive, while a Contingent cfDNA test can achieve high performance at a relatively low cost. Practicalities to be considered in the provision of testing include pretest counseling about the scope and accuracy of the testing, the interpretation of results when there is a low fetal fraction and follow-up studies for positive test results. The role of first trimester nuchal translucency measurement and conventional biochemical testing needs to be reassessed in the context of the use of cfDNA.
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Chromosome Disorders, DNA, Health Care Costs, Aneuploidy, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Humans, False Positive Reactions, Female, Genetic Testing, Biomarkers
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Chromosome Disorders, DNA, Health Care Costs, Aneuploidy, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Humans, False Positive Reactions, Female, Genetic Testing, Biomarkers
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 78 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
