• Shelley D Dougan, Nan Okun, Kara Bellai-Dussault, Lynn Meng, Heather E Howley, Tianhua Huang, Jessica Reszel, Andrea Lanes, Mark C Walker, and Christine M Armour.
• Prenatal Screening Ontario (Dougan, Okun, Bellai-Dussault, Meng, Huang, Reszel, Lanes, Walker, Armour), Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario; Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute (Dougan, Bellai-Dussault, Howley, Reszel, Walker, Armour), Ottawa, Ont.; Mount Sinai Hospital (Okun); Genetics Program (Huang), North York General Hospital; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Huang), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Walker), University of Ottawa; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) (Walker); Department of Pediatrics (Armour), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. SDougan@BORNOntario.ca.
• CMAJ. 2021 Aug 3; 193 (30): E1156-E1163.

BackgroundThe emergence of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) testing technology has disrupted the landscape of prenatal screening for trisomies 21 (T21) and 18 (T18). Publicly funded systems around the world are grappling with how to best integrate this more accurate but costly technology, as there is limited evidence about its incremental value in real-world conditions. The objectives of this study were to describe the population-based performance of Ontario's prenatal screening program, which incorporates publicly funded cfDNA screening for specific indications, and the effect of cfDNA testing on the screening and diagnostic choices made by pregnant people.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, descriptive cohort study using routinely collected data from Better Outcomes & Registry Network (BORN) Ontario, which captures linked population data for prenatal and neonatal health encounters across Ontario. We included all singleton pregnancies with an estimated due date between Sept. 1, 2016, and Mar. 31, 2019, that underwent publicly funded prenatal screening in Ontario, and a comparison cohort from Apr. 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2013. We assessed performance of the screening program for the detection of T21 or T18 by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value against diagnostic cytogenetic results or birth outcomes. We assessed the impact of the program by calculating the proportion of T21 screen-positive pregnancies undergoing subsequent cfDNA screening and invasive prenatal diagnostic testing.ResultsThe study cohort included 373 682 pregnancies. The prenatal screening program had an uptake of 69.9%, a screen-positive rate and sensitivity of 1.6% and 89.9% for T21, and 0.2% and 80.5% for T18, respectively. The test failure rate for cfDNA screening was 2.2%. Invasive prenatal diagnostic testing decreased from 4.4% in 2012-2013 to 2.4% over the study period; 65.2% of pregnant people who received a screen-positive result from cfDNA testing went on to have invasive prenatal diagnostic testing.InterpretationThis publicly funded screening program, incorporating cfDNA analysis for common aneuploidies, showed robust performance, a substantial reduction in invasive prenatal diagnostic testing and that pregnant people exercise autonomy in their choices about prenatal screening and diagnosis.© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.

20 keywords...

hide…