News

Low-risk prenatal testing gives 12 times more false positives than cell-free DNA testing

View on the News

Are we facing a new ethics threshold?

The good news out of this is the much lower rate of false positives compared with traditional screening. But what I think is important here is that it’s potentially so easy and accurate to do this testing, that I hope it will continue to be done with full discussion and informed consent regarding the implications, and without judgment about whether or not women ought to pursue this testing. What’s in the background of decisions about testing is the question of abortion, which is as personal and value-laden a decision as anyone can make. As a result, discussion of the fact that testing may lead inevitably to decisions about abortion has to be a part of the conversation from the beginning.


Dr. Steven Joffe

The concepts of prenatal screening and diagnostic testing have been around for a long time, so in principle they are not new to obstetricians and their patients. Prenatal screening should be performed only with full consent, and with discussion of the potential downstream implications and questions that women and their partners may need to confront, similar to chess where you are thinking three moves ahead. The discussion should address what will happen at the point of the first test, including the possibility of a further diagnostic test, and then where things will go if the fetus is found to have one of these trisomies.

My concern is that because this new testing technology is easy and accurate, and greatly reduces the potential for anxiety caused by false positives, there might be the assumption that it’s a good thing to do for all women. My own view is that it will be good for some, and not for others. You want to be sure where your patient stands before you embark on this pathway. You want to be sure of the woman’s and her partner’s values before you offer this testing as something that will inform decisions about whether to bring the pregnancy to term.

In addition, I suspect it is inevitable that we will move in the direction of using this technology to test or screen for a whole list of other genetic conditions. We should be talking about whether or not that’s a good thing. For example, some women know that they are BRCA1 carriers, and they will ask their obstetricians if they can use this technology to test for conditions like that. Clinicians will need to start expanding their resources for patient education about genetics, and for genetic counseling of these patients, in order to be prepared for these kinds of questions.

Dr. Steven Joffe, a pediatric oncologist and bioethicist, is vice chair of medical ethics at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an attending physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Joffe had no conflict of interest disclosures.


 

FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

The current prenatal screening standard of care for Down syndrome and other trisomies in low-risk pregnancies is more than three times as likely to return a false positive, compared with false positive rates from noninvasive, cell-free DNA testing, according to a new study.

The findings likely will strengthen public demand for the novel testing to become routine, according to Dr. Diana W. Bianchi, lead author of the CARE (Comparison of Aneuploidy Risk Evaluation) study.

"The pregnant women social media groups are very aware of the false positives. I think everybody knows somebody who has had one, since there’s 1 in 20 chance of that [happening]," Dr. Bianchi said in an interview.

Surprising results

Also revealed in the study was cell-free DNA testing’s essentially 100% negative predictive value for aneuploidies in low-risk populations.

The results are "very impressive," said Dr. Michael F. Greene, associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, in an interview. "I do think this is going to sweep the table in terms of what is offered to pregnant women," particularly if other studies demonstrate the same level of efficacy, he said. The study was published online (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:799-808).

©iStock/thinkstockphotos.com

The current prenatal screening standard for low-risk pregnancies is more than three times as likely to return a false positive for Down syndrome and other trisomies than noninvasive, cell-free DNA testing.

To compare false positive rates in the two methods of screening, Dr. Bianchi and her team analyzed test results from 1,914 women (average age, 30 years) enrolled from the general obstetrical population across 21 centers in 14 states. Participants either had or planned to have standard aneuploidy serum screening. All women were risk classified according to standard screening and had a singleton fetus without aneuploidy and a gestational age of at least 8 weeks. A second serum sample was taken from each woman, and massively parallel sequencing was used by laboratory personnel blinded to fetal karyotype to determine the chromosome dosage. Birth outcomes or karyotypes were used as the reference standard.

For trisomies 21 and 18, the false positive rates returned by cell-free DNA testing were significantly lower than those returned by standard screening: 6 patients vs. 69 out of 1,909 for trisomy 21 (0.3% vs. 3.6%; P less than .001), and 3 vs. 11 out of 1,905 for trisomy 18 (0.2% vs. 0.6%, P = .03).

The positive detection rate for cell-free DNA testing of all aneuploidies (5 for trisomy 21, 2 for trisomy 18, and 1 for trisomy 13) was 100% (95% confidence interval, 99.8-100). The positive predictive values for the cell-free DNA testing, compared with standard screening, were 45.5% vs. 4.2% for trisomy 21, and 40.0% vs. 8.3% for trisomy 18.

These positive predictive values, Dr. Greene and Dr. Elizabeth G. Phimister wrote in an accompanying editorial, "underscore the conclusion that assaying fetal DNA is a screening tool and not a diagnostic intervention." However, they concluded, "the observed negative predictive values of 100% with 95% confidence limits down to 99.8%, combined with the significantly and substantively lower false positive rates with cell-free DNA screening than with standard screening, augur well for pregnant women and their fetuses" (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:874-5).

"I think it is going to surprise people when they see that the current standard of care has such a low positive predictive value in a general obstetrical population," said Dr. Bianchi, who also directs the Mother Infant Research Institute at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

Dr. Diana W. Bianchi

The primary outcome was determined by newborn physical examination in 1,857 patients (97.0%) and by karyotype in 57 patients (3.0%). Of these, chorionic villus sampling was performed in 10 patients, amniocentesis in 38, testing of the products of conception in 3, and postnatal evaluation in 6. The women whose cell-free DNA tests came back with false positive readings all had live births with normal physical examinations.

The secondary endpoint was a similar comparison of detection rates for trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome). There was one false positive result for trisomy 13 with cell-free DNA testing, as compared with six false positive results on standard screening, thus showing a trend toward significance (P = .059) in the 899 patients who underwent standard screening for trisomy 13.

Fetal fraction not maternal age–related

The researchers found that cell-free DNA testing had the same high-sensitivity detection rates in low-risk obstetrical populations as has been previously established in high-risk ones. Generally considered at higher risk for trisomy 21, women 35 years and older who were tested in either the first or second trimesters had results that were nearly identical to results from women under age 35 in terms of both their mean percentage of free fetal DNA and their standard screening results and/or cell-free DNA results (11.3% and 11.6%, respectively). For women tested in the third trimester, the fetal fraction was higher (mean, 24.6%).

Pages

Recommended Reading

Let expectant mothers labor longer to avoid C-sections
MDedge ObGyn
Annual mammography at age 40-59 provides no survival benefit
MDedge ObGyn
Treating female pattern hair loss
MDedge ObGyn
Noninvasive prenatal testing detects more than 80% of chromosomal abnormalities
MDedge ObGyn
VIDEO: Tips for treating acne in breastfeeding women
MDedge ObGyn
Study finds increased infant mortality for home births
MDedge ObGyn
Weak link found between induction and high C-section rates
MDedge ObGyn
The protective effects of morning sickness
MDedge ObGyn
Prenatal acetaminophen exposure may affect ADHD in childhood
MDedge ObGyn
Antiphospholipid, thrombosis histories differently affect pregnancy antithrombotic needs
MDedge ObGyn