scholarly journals Validation of combinatorial probe-anchor ligation-based sequencing as non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy at a central laboratory

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ma ◽  
Y. Wang ◽  
W. Wang ◽  
Y. Dong ◽  
C. Xu ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Karuna R. M. van der Meij ◽  
Annabel Njio ◽  
Linda Martin ◽  
Janneke T. Gitsels-van der Wal ◽  
Mireille N. Bekker ◽  
...  

AbstractDue to the favorable test characteristics of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) in the screening of fetal aneuploidy, there has been a strong and growing demand for implementation. In the Netherlands, NIPT is offered within a governmentally supported screening program as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women (TRIDENT-2 study). However, concerns have been raised that the test’s favorable characteristics might lead to uncritical use, also referred to as routinization. This study addresses women’s perspectives on prenatal screening with NIPT by evaluating three aspects related to routinization: informed choice, freedom to choose and (personal and societal) perspectives on Down syndrome. Nationwide, a questionnaire was completed by 751 pregnant women after receiving counseling for prenatal screening. Of the respondents, the majority (75.5%) made an informed choice for prenatal screening as measured by the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Education level and religious affiliation were significant predictors of informed choice. The main reason to accept screening was “seeking reassurance” (25.5%), and the main reason to decline was “every child is welcome” (30.6%). The majority of respondents (87.7%) did not perceive societal pressure to test. Differences between test-acceptors and test-decliners in personal and societal perspectives on Down syndrome were found. Our study revealed high rates of informed decision-making and perceived freedom to choose regarding fetal aneuploidy screening, suggesting that there is little reason for concern about routinization of NIPT based on the perspectives of Dutch pregnant women. Our findings highlight the importance of responsible implementation of NIPT within a national screening program.


2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (1) ◽  
pp. S367-S368
Author(s):  
Brian P. Landry ◽  
Amy Nguyen ◽  
Oguzhan Atay ◽  
David Tsao

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1090-1095
Author(s):  
Hae-Jin Hu ◽  
Mi-Young Lee ◽  
Dae-Yeon Cho ◽  
Mijin Oh ◽  
Young-Jun Kwon ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-420
Author(s):  
Prachi Sinkar ◽  
Sandhya Iyer ◽  
Kallathikumar Kallathiyan
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongzhen Liu ◽  
Xi Yang ◽  
Haixiao Chen ◽  
Sujun Zhu ◽  
Juan Zeng ◽  
...  

AbstractCell-free DNA (cfDNA) has been widely used in prenatal test and cancer diagnosis nowadays. The cost- and time-effective isolation kits are needed especially in large-scale clinical application. Here, we compared three domestic kits: VAHTS Serum/Plasma Circulating DNA kit (VZ), MagPure Gel Pure DNA mini kit (MG) and Serum/Plasma Circulating DNA Kit (TG), together with QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (QC) and QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit (QD) in cfDNA isolation. cfDNA was isolated from the pooled samples with spike-in fragments, qPCR was conducted to quantify the spike-in fragments recovery. The results indicated that all of the five kits could isolate cfDNA with different efficiency. The VZ kit had an efficiency as high as 90 percent, which is comparable to QC kit. The libraries were constructed using the isolated cfDNAs, quantified by Qubit and analyzed by 2100 bioanalyzer. Both showed the libraries were qualified. Finally, cffDNAs were detected by qPCR targeting SRY gene using libraries from pregnant women bearing male fetuses. All five kits could isolate cffDNAs that could be detected by qPCR. Our results provided more choices in wide-scale clinical application of cfDNA-based non-invasive genetic tests.


2014 ◽  
Vol 433 ◽  
pp. 190-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Mao ◽  
Ting Wang ◽  
Ben-Jing Wang ◽  
Ying-Hua Liu ◽  
Hong Li ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karuna R.M. Meij ◽  
Caroline Kooij ◽  
Mireille N. Bekker ◽  
Robert‐Jan H. Galjaard ◽  
Lidewij Henneman ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document