First Trimester Screening and its Impact on Uptake of Diagnostic Testing

Introduction: First Trimester Screening (FTS) combines maternal age with fetal nuchal translucency (NT) and maternal analytes to identify pregnancies at an increased risk for Down syndrome and trisomy 18. Though the accuracy of this screening is high, it cannot replace the conclusive accuracy of prenatal diagnostic testing (PDT). Since FTS has been available, a decrease in the number of women who pursue PDT has been observed. This study sought to determine if there has been a significant change in the amount of PDT performed in our clinics, if the type of FTS result affects the patient’s decision regarding PDT, and what the patient’s intentions are regarding PDT. Material and Methods: A database review was performed for the two years prior and the two years after the January 2007 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines regarding FTS were issued. We compared the number of women who were AMA and the number of women who were AMA and had PDT between those time periods. We also determined the number of positive and negative FTS results, and determined how many of those patients had PDT. Finally, we surveyed our patients and referring physicians to determine: what the patient understands about FTS, what the patient’s intentions are regarding FTS, and how physicians present the option of FTS to their patients. Results: We determined that there was a 19.6% decrease in the amount of PDT performed when we compared the two time periods at our three specified clinics. Many of our patients were against having PDT prior to their genetic counseling session, but after they received genetic counseling, 76% of our population became open to the possibility of having PDT. Conclusion: Similar to previous studies, we determined that there has been a significant decrease in the number of PDT procedures performed at our clinics, which coincides with the release of the January 2007 ACOG statement regarding FTS. While our patients regarded FTS as a way to gain early information about their pregnancy in a non-invasive manner, they also stated they would use their results as a way to aid in their decision regarding PDT.

ATTITUDES TOWARD AND UTILIZATION OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDY AMONG OB/GYNS

Prenatal diagnosis is traditionally made via invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). However, both procedures carry a risk of complications, including miscarriage. Many groups have spent years searching for a way to diagnose a chromosome aneuploidy without putting the fetus or the mother at risk for complications. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidy became commercially available in the fall of 2011, with detection rates similar to those of invasive procedures for the common autosomal aneuploidies (Palomaki et al., 2011; Ashoor et al. 2012; Bianchi et al. 2012). Eventually NIPT may become the diagnostic standard of care and reduce invasive procedure-related losses (Palomaki et al., 2011). The integration of NIPT into clinical practice has potential to revolutionize prenatal diagnosis; however, it also raises some crucial issues for practitioners. Now that the test is clinically available, no studies have looked at the physicians that will be ordering the testing or referring patients to practitioners who do. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of OB/GYN’s and how they are incorporating the test into clinical practice. Our study shows that most physicians are offering this new, non-invasive technology to their patients, and that their practices were congruent with the literature and available professional society opinions. Those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients would like more literature on the topic as well as instructive guidelines from their professional societies. Additionally, this study shows that the practices and attitudes of MFMs and OBs differ. Our population feels that the incorporation of NIPT will change their practices by lowering the amount of invasive procedures, possibly replacing maternal serum screening, and that it will simplify prenatal diagnosis. However, those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients are not quite sure how the test will affect their clinical practice. From this study we are able to glean how physicians are incorporating this new technology into their practice and how they feel about the addition to their repertoire of tests. This knowledge gives insight as to how to best move forward with the quickly changing field of prenatal diagnosis.