First-trimester screening-biomarkers and cell-free DNA.

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.