Non‐invasive prenatal testing: clinical utility and ethical concerns about recent advances
Authors: Helen G Liley, Michael J Peek and James Daly
Published online: 18 October 2021
To the Editor: Thomas and colleagues1 describe the ethical complexities that can arise in the use of non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) based on the detection of cell‐free fetal DNA in the maternal circulation to screen for chromosomal and other genetic fetal conditions, especially if the clinical utility and implications of the testing are not well understood and explained. They indicate that “the current NIPT tests available are for specific chromosomal aneuploidy, extended panels of targeted conditions and low resolution whole genome sequencing”.
We support that all tests (for screening or diagnosis, and not just genetic tests) should be explained. However, we remind readers that there are specific tests using NIPT of cell‐free fetal DNA that have strong potential to benefit women and their fetuses and are at very low risk of the ethical hazards that concern Thomas and colleagues. A lead example is testing in women who are RhD (antigen) negative to predict whether the fetus is RHD (genotype) positive. Such testing can establish with a high level of certainty whether the fetus is RHD negative, in which case the woman can be spared the need for antenatal RhD immunoprophylaxis to prevent alloimmunisation. This approach not only spares around a third of women who are RhD‐negative the need for immunoprophylaxis but may also help reduce the burden on a small and altruistic pool of RhD immunoglobulin donors.2,3 In RhD‐negative women with preformed RhD antibodies, similar testing can be used to determine whether or not there is a need for intensive surveillance during the pregnancy for haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn.
To consider all tests that use NIPT based on cell‐free fetal DNA as carrying the same complexity of explanation and ethical risk would resemble a conclusion that all immunochemistry is ethically risky because of the difficulties of explaining and interpreting prostate‐specific antigen tests, or that all fetal ultrasound is unethical because in some countries it is used inappropriately for sex selection. We encourage readers to consider that the underlying reason and specific target for each test, much more than the platform on which it is run, determines the level of ethical complexity.
Competing interests
References
- Thomas J, Harraway J, Kirchhoffer D. Non‐invasive prenatal testing: clinical utility and ethical concerns about recent advances. Med J Aust 2021; 214: 168–170. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/214/4/non-invasive-prenatal-testing-clinical-utility-and-ethical-concerns-about-recent
- Alshehri AA, Jackson DE. Non‐invasive prenatal fetal blood group genotype and its application in the management of hemolytic disease of fetus and newborn: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Transfus Med Rev 2021; 35: 85–94.
- van Hoeven LR, Berkowska MA, Verhagen OJ et al. Prediction of the anti‐RhD donor population size for managerial decision‐making. Vox Sang 2016; 111: 171–177.
Getting on the Same Page: Why Australia Needs a National Maternity Early Warning System (MEWS) Chart
Briony A. Cutts, Lucy Bowyer, Nisha Khot, Sandra Lowe, Stefan C. Kane
Four Urgent Actions for the Rights to Culturally Safe Breastfeeding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mothers and Babies to Breastfeed in Neonatal Intensive Care Environments
Jessica Bennett, Jamie Bryant, Kade Booth, Michelle Kennedy
Interpreting Australian Stillbirth Rate Trends: Implications for Surveillance and Continuous Quality Improvement
Aleena M. Wojcieszek, Kirstine Sketcher-Baker, Christine Andrews, Michael Coory, Imogen Kettle, Melissa Malivoire, David Ellwood, Vicki Flenady
The clinical presentation, investigation, and management of women diagnosed with endometriosis in Australian general practices, 2011–2021: an open cohort study
Danielle Mazza, Kailash Thapaliya, Sharinne B Crawford, Alissia Hui, Maryam Moradi, Luke E Grzeskowiak
The early implementation phase of the Omega‐3 Test‐and‐Treat Program for reducing the risk of preterm birth, South Australia, 2021–22: an implementation evaluation study
Karen P Best, Celine Northcott, Lucy A Simmonds, Philippa Middleton, Lisa N Yelland, Vanessa Moffa, Khoa Lam, Penelope Coates, Cornelia Späth, Carol WK Siu, Karen Glover, Rhiannon Smith, Robert Gibson, Maria Makrides
Concurrent use of hormonal long‐acting reversible contraception by women of reproductive age dispensed teratogenic medications, Australia, 2013–2021
Aaron E Boyce, Tony Caccetta, Jo‐Ann See, Rosemary L Nixon AM