The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2019
First-trimester screening-biomarkers and cell-free DNA.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suciu Ioan, Galeva Slavyana, Abdel Azim Samira, Pop Lucian, Toader Oana
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The introduction of cell-free DNA into clinical practice has changed the screening approach. Healthcare professionals and future parents tend to overestimate NIPT (noninvasive prenatal testing) capabilities despite its relatively high cost and limited information.
OBJECTIVE: In this review, our aim was to survey how various countries have introduced contingent screening models and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the combined screening test and the use of NIPT.
DATA SOURCE: The Web of Science, PubMed database and institutional websites were searched for information regarding screening approaches and the implementation in different countries.
RESULTS: There are nine countries and regions that have already approved contingent screening test, while others (e.g. Australia) are discussing the implementation of contingent screening versus universal use of NIPT. There are several recent meta-analyses debating whether to use NIPT for universal screening for trisomies and other fetal conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: NIPT is a reasonable option as an advanced screening test for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 only. Introducing screening by NIPT instead of a first-trimester screening will cause the loss of other valuable information including accurate dating of pregnancy, diagnosing major structural fetal abnormalities and multiple pregnancies at an early gestational age. Additionally, the opportunity to screen for early preeclampsia will be lost. Currently, the price for NIPT is still high adding extra strain on publicly funded health systems.
OBJECTIVE: In this review, our aim was to survey how various countries have introduced contingent screening models and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the combined screening test and the use of NIPT.
DATA SOURCE: The Web of Science, PubMed database and institutional websites were searched for information regarding screening approaches and the implementation in different countries.
RESULTS: There are nine countries and regions that have already approved contingent screening test, while others (e.g. Australia) are discussing the implementation of contingent screening versus universal use of NIPT. There are several recent meta-analyses debating whether to use NIPT for universal screening for trisomies and other fetal conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: NIPT is a reasonable option as an advanced screening test for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 only. Introducing screening by NIPT instead of a first-trimester screening will cause the loss of other valuable information including accurate dating of pregnancy, diagnosing major structural fetal abnormalities and multiple pregnancies at an early gestational age. Additionally, the opportunity to screen for early preeclampsia will be lost. Currently, the price for NIPT is still high adding extra strain on publicly funded health systems.