Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies, where karyotype/chromosomal microarray (CMA) is normal.Methods: Following electronic searches of four databases, we included studies with ≥10 structurally abnormal fetuses undergoing ES or whole genome sequencing. The incremental diagnostic yield of ES over CMA/karyotype was calculated and pooled in a meta‐analysis. Sub‐group analyses investigated effects of case selection and fetal phenotype on diagnostic yield.Results: We identified 72 reports from 66 studies, representing 4350 fetuses. The pooled incremental yield of ES was 31% (95% confidence interval (CI) 26%–36%,p < 0.0001). Diagnostic yield was significantly higher for cases pre‐selected for likelihood of monogenic aetiology compared to unselected cases (42% vs. 15%,p < 0.0001). Diagnostic yield differed significantly between phenotypic sub‐groups, ranging from 53% (95% CI 42%–63%,p < 0.0001) for isolated skeletal abnormalities, to 2% (95% CI 0%–5%,p = 0.04) for isolated increased nuchal translucency.Conclusion: Prenatal ES provides a diagnosis in an additional 31% of structurally abnormal fetuses when CMA/karyotype is non‐diagnostic. The expected diagnostic yield depends on the body system(s) affected and can be optimised by pre‐selection of cases following multi‐disciplinary review to determine that a monogenic cause is likely.

Objective To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015. Participants All pregnant women with a current Down’s syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000. Main outcome measures Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down’s syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets. Results NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down’s syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down’s syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval −34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£−46 000, £−1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down’s syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages. Conclusions Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down’s syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down’s syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting.

Non-invasive prenatal testing is increasingly available worldwide and stakeholder viewpoints are essential to guide implementation. Here we compare the preferences of women and health professionals from nine different countries towards attributes of non-invasive and invasive prenatal tests for Down syndrome. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain participants’ stated preference for prenatal tests that varied according to four attributes: accuracy, time of test, risk of miscarriage, and type of information. Pregnant women and health professionals were recruited from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. A total of 2666 women’s and 1245 health professionals’ questionnaires were included in the analysis. Differences in preferences were seen between women and health professionals within and between countries. Overall, women placed greater emphasis on test safety and comprehensive information than health professionals, who emphasised accuracy and early testing. Differences between women’s and health professionals’ preferences are marked between countries. Varied approaches to implementation and service delivery are therefore needed and individual countries should develop guidelines appropriate for their own social and screening contexts.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidies is now available through commercial companies in many countries, including through private practice in the United Kingdom (UK). Thorough evaluation of service delivery requirements are needed to facilitate NIPT being offered more widely within state funded healthcare systems such as the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). Successful implementation will require the development of laboratory standards, consideration of stakeholder views, an analysis of costs and development of patient and health professional educational materials. NIPT will be offered in an NHS setting as a contingent screening test. Pregnant woman will be recruited through six maternity units in England and Scotland. Women eligible for Down’s syndrome screening (DSS) will be informed about the study at the time of booking. Women that choose routine DSS will be offered NIPT if they have a screening risk ≥1:1000. NIPT results for trisomy 21, 18, 13 will be reported within 7–10 working days. Data on DSS, NIPT and invasive testing uptake, pregnancy outcomes and test efficacy will be collected. Additional data will be gathered though questionnaires to a) determine acceptability to patients and health professionals, b) evaluate patient and health professional education, c) assess informed choice in women accepting or declining testing and d) gauge family expenses. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted with a sub-set of participating women and health professionals. The results of this study will make a significant contribution to policy decisions around the implementation of NIPT for aneuploidies within the UK NHS. The laboratory standards for testing and reporting, education materials and counselling strategies developed as part of the study are likely to underpin the introduction of NIPT into NHS practice. 13865

Background: Implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a highly accurate aneuploidy screening test has raised questions around whether the high uptake may result in more terminations of pregnancies and fewer births of children with Down syndrome (DS).Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of NIPT on termination and live birth rates for DS.Methods: Literature reporting pregnancy outcomes following NIPT was reviewed. Termination rates were calculated for women with a high‐risk NIPT result for DS. Two audits of pregnancy outcomes where NIPT indicated DS were conducted in the United Kingdom and Singapore.Results: Fourteen studies from the United States, Asia, Europe, and the United Kingdom were included in the review. Live births of children with DS were reported in 8 studies. Termination rates following NIPT were unchanged or decreased when compared to termination rates prior to the introduction of NIPT. Audits found 15 of 43 women in the United Kingdom and 2 of 6 in Singapore continued pregnancies following a high‐risk NIPT result.Conclusions: Termination rates following the detection of DS by NIPT are unchanged or decreased compared to historical termination rates. Impact on live birth rates may be minimal in settings where termination rates fall. Population‐based studies are required to determine the true impact.

Objective: Evaluate the costs of offering non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing to inform NIPD implementation into clinical practice.Method: Total costs of diagnosis using NIPD or invasive testing pathways were compared for a representative set of single gene disorders.Results: For autosomal dominant conditions, where NIPD molecular techniques are straightforward, NIPD cost £314 less than invasive testing. NIPD for autosomal recessive and X‐linked conditions requires more complicated technical approaches and total costs were more than invasive testing, e.g. NIPD for spinal muscular atrophy was £1090 more than invasive testing. Impact of test uptake on costs was assessed using sickle cell disorder as an example. Anticipated high uptake of NIPD resulted in an incremental cost of NIPD over invasive testing of £48 635 per 100 pregnancies at risk of sickle cell disorder.Conclusion: Total costs of NIPD are dependent upon the complexity of the testing technique required. Anticipated increased demand for testing may have economic implications for prenatal diagnostic services. Ethical issues requiring further consideration are highlighted including directing resources to NIPD when used for information only and restricting access to safe tests if it is not cost‐effective to develop NIPD for rare conditions. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.