Patient Perception of Negative Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Results

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To determine patient perception of residual risk after receiving a negative non-invasive prenatal testing result.

Introduction Recent technological advances have yielded a new method of prenatal screening, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which uses cell-free fetal DNA from the mother's blood to assess for aneuploidy. NIPT has much higher detection rates and positive predictive values than previous methods however, NIPT is not diagnostic. Past studies have demonstrated that patients may underestimate the limitations of prenatal screening; however, patient perception of NIPT has not yet been assessed.

Methods and Materials We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess patient understanding of the residual risk for aneuploidy after receiving a negative NIPT result. Ninety-four participants who had prenatal genetic counseling and a subsequent negative NIPT were surveyed.

Results There was a significant decline in general level of worry after a negative NIPT result (p = <0.0001). The majority of participants (61%) understood the residual risk post NIPT. Individuals with at least four years of college education were more likely to understand that NIPT does not eliminate the chance of trisomy 13/18 (p = 0.012) and sex chromosome abnormality (p = 0.039), and were more likely to understand which conditions NIPT tests for (p = 0.021), compared to those women with less formal education.

Conclusion These data demonstrate that despite the relatively recent implementation of NIPT into obstetric practice, the majority of women are aware of its limitations after receiving genetic counseling. However, clinicians may need to consider alternative ways to communicate the limitations of NIPT to those women with less formal education to ensure understanding.

• References

• 1 Driscoll DA, Gross S. Clinical practice. Prenatal screening for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (24) 2556-2562
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Wapner R, Thom E, Simpson JL , et al; First Trimester Maternal Serum Biochemistry and Fetal Nuchal Translucency Screening (BUN) Study Group. First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18. N Engl J Med 2003; 349 (15) 1405-1413
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Positive predictive value again. BJOG 1999; 106 (9) vii-viii
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM , et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med 2011; 13 (11) 913-920
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Palomaki GE, Deciu C, Kloza EM , et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma reliably identifies trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 as well as Down syndrome: an international collaborative study. Genet Med 2012; 14 (3) 296-305
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP ; MatErnal BLood IS Source to Accurately diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119 (5) 890-901
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Gil MM, Quezada MS, Bregant B, Ferraro M, Nicolaides KH. Implementation of maternal blood cell-free DNA testing in early screening for aneuploidies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42 (1) 34-40
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45 (3) 249-266
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Neufeld-Kaiser WA, Cheng EY, Liu YJ. Positive predictive value of non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal chromosome disorders using cell-free DNA in maternal serum: independent clinical experience of a tertiary referral center. BMC Med 2015; 13: 129
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Mercer MB, Agatisa PK, Farrell RM. What patients are reading about noninvasive prenatal testing: an evaluation of Internet content and implications for patient-centered care. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34 (10) 986-993
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Tiller GE, Kershberg HB, Goff J, Coffeen C, Liao W, Sehnert AJ. Women's views and the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on procedures in a managed care setting. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35 (5) 428-433
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Hall S, Bobrow M, Marteau TM. Psychological consequences for parents of false negative results on prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: retrospective interview study. BMJ 2000; 320 (7232): 407-412
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Wong AE, Collingham JP, Koszut SP, Grobman WA. Maternal factors associated with misperceptions of the second-trimester sonogram. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32 (11) 1029-1034
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Goel V, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Pugh P, Summers A. Evaluating patient's knowledge of maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 1996; 16 (5) 425-430
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Cho RN, Plunkett BA, Wolf MS, Simon CE, Grobman WA. Health literacy and patient understanding of screening tests for aneuploidy and neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn 2007; 27 (5) 463-467
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Gates EA. Communicating risk in prenatal genetic testing. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49 (3) 220-227
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 United States Census Bureau. Educational Attainment in the United States. 2014 . Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data . Accessed February 18, 2016
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Vlemmix F, Warendorf JK, Rosman AN , et al. Decision aids to improve informed decision-making in pregnancy care: a systematic review. BJOG 2013; 120 (3) 257-266
  Google Scholar