Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies

19Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Prenatal screening for chromosome aneuploidies have constantly been evolving, especially with the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening in the most recent years. This study compares the performance, costs and timing of test results of three cfDNA screening implementation strategies: contingent, reflex and primary. Methods: We modelled enhanced first trimester screening (eFTS) as the first-tier test in contingent or reflex strategies. cfDNA test was performed contingent on or reflex from eFTS results. A comparison was made between cfDNA screening using sequencing technology and Rolling Circle Amplification (RCA)/imaging solution. All model assumptions were based on results from previous publications or information from the Ontario prenatal screening population. Results: At an eFTS risk cut-off of ≥1/1000, contingent and reflex cfDNA screening have the same detection rate (DR) (94%) for trisomy 21. Reflex cfDNA screening using RCA/Imaging solution provided the lowest false positive rate and cost. The number of women requiring genetic counselling and diagnostic testing was significantly reduced and women received their cfDNA screening result 9 days sooner compared with the contingent model. While primary cfDNA screening improved the trisomy 21 DR by 3–5%, it was more costly and more women required diagnostic testing. Conclusion: Reflex cfDNA screening is the most cost-effective prenatal screening strategy. It can improve the efficiency of prenatal aneuploidy screening by reducing the number of patient visits and providing more timely results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huang, T., Gibbons, C., Rashid, S., Priston, M. K., Bedford, H. M., Mak-Tam, E., & Meschino, W. S. (2020). Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03394-w

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free