Non-invasive prenatal testing of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies: what should be changed?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25753/BirthGrowthMJ.v28.i2.18428Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Lau TK, Chan MK, Lo PS, Chan HY, Chan WS, Koo TY, et al. Clinical utility of noninvasive fetal trisomy (NIFTY) test-early experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25:1856-9. doi:10.3109/14767058.2012.678442.
2. Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Womens Health. 2015; 7:113-26. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S67124.
3. Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50:302–14.
4. Santorum M, Wright D, Syngelaki A, Karagioti N, Nicolaides KH. Accuracy of first-trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49:714–20.
5. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, Kagan KO, Paladini D, Yeo G, et al. ISUOG consensus statement on the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on prenatal ultrasound practice. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2014; 218:242-3. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1395670.
6. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, Kagan KO, Paladini D, Yeo G, et al. ISUOG updated consensus statement on the impact of cfDNA aneuploidy testing on screening policies and prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49:815-6.
7. John NM, Wright SJ, Gavan SP, Vass CM. The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ. 2019. doi:10.1007/s10198-019-01082-x.
8. Bayón JC, Orruño E, Portillo MI, Asua J. The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing with cell-free foetal DNA for the detection of Down syndrome in the Spanish National Health Service: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2019;17:6. doi: 10.1186/s12962-019-0173-8.
9. Xu Y, Wei Y, Ming J, Li N, Xu N, Pong RW, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019; 35:237-42. doi:10.1017/S0266462319000308.
10. García-Pérez L, Linertová R, Álvarez-de-la-Rosa M, Bayón JC, Imaz-Iglesia I, Ferrer-Rodríguez J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ. 2018; 19:979-91. doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y.
2. Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Womens Health. 2015; 7:113-26. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S67124.
3. Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50:302–14.
4. Santorum M, Wright D, Syngelaki A, Karagioti N, Nicolaides KH. Accuracy of first-trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49:714–20.
5. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, Kagan KO, Paladini D, Yeo G, et al. ISUOG consensus statement on the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on prenatal ultrasound practice. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2014; 218:242-3. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1395670.
6. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, Kagan KO, Paladini D, Yeo G, et al. ISUOG updated consensus statement on the impact of cfDNA aneuploidy testing on screening policies and prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49:815-6.
7. John NM, Wright SJ, Gavan SP, Vass CM. The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ. 2019. doi:10.1007/s10198-019-01082-x.
8. Bayón JC, Orruño E, Portillo MI, Asua J. The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing with cell-free foetal DNA for the detection of Down syndrome in the Spanish National Health Service: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2019;17:6. doi: 10.1186/s12962-019-0173-8.
9. Xu Y, Wei Y, Ming J, Li N, Xu N, Pong RW, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019; 35:237-42. doi:10.1017/S0266462319000308.
10. García-Pérez L, Linertová R, Álvarez-de-la-Rosa M, Bayón JC, Imaz-Iglesia I, Ferrer-Rodríguez J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ. 2018; 19:979-91. doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y.
Downloads
Published
2019-08-09
How to Cite
1.
Guedes-Martins L. Non-invasive prenatal testing of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies: what should be changed?. REVNEC [Internet]. 2019Aug.9 [cited 2023Jun.1];28(2):61-2. Available from: https://revistas.rcaap.pt/nascercrescer/article/view/18428
Issue
Section
Editorial
License
Copyright and access
This journal offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that providing free scientific knowledge to the public provides greater global democratization of knowledge.
The works are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International license.
Nascer e Crescer – Birth and Growth Medical Journal do not charge any submission or processing fee to the articles submitted.
