Back

Performance of a universally offered prenatal screening program incorporating cfDNA in Ontario, Canada: a descriptive population-based cohort study of 280,000 pregnancies.

Dougan, S. D.; Okun, N.; Bellai-Dussault, K.; Meng, L.; Howley, H. E.; Huang, T.; Reszel, J.; Lanes, A.; Walker, M. C.; Armour, C.

2020-09-23 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2020.09.22.20195123
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWO_ST_ABSObjectivesC_ST_ABSTo measure the population-based performance and impact of Ontario, Canadas modified-contingent prenatal screening system for the detection of trisomies 21 (T21) and 18 (T18). DesignA retrospective, descriptive cohort study examining routinely collected data from BORN Ontario, which captures linkable population data for prenatal and neonatal health encounters across a variety of settings (e.g., laboratories, birthing hospitals and midwifery practice groups). SettingA province-wide and publicly funded prenatal screening program in Ontario, Canada offering cfDNA screening for those at increased risk of having a pregnancy with T21 or T18. Participants373,682 singleton pregnancies with an estimated due date between September 1 2016 and March 31, 2019 who were offered publicly funded prenatal screening. Main outcome measuresPrenatal detection of T21 or T18, ascertained by cytogenetic results. Performance was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value against confirmatory diagnostic cytogenetic results and birth outcomes. The secondary objective was to determine the impact of contingent cfDNA screening by measuring uptake and the proportion of T21 screen-positive pregnancies undergoing subsequent cfDNA screening and invasive prenatal diagnostic testing (PND). Results69% of pregnancies in Ontario underwent prenatal screening for T21/T18. The modified-contingent screen sensitivity was 89.9% for T21 and 80.5% for T18. The modified-contingent screen-positive rate was 1.6% for T21 and 0.2% for T18. The cfDNA screening test failure rate was 2.2% (final result including multiple attempts). The PND rate among pregnancies screened was 2.4%. ConclusionsThis study is the largest evaluation of population-based performance of a publicly funded cfDNA prenatal screening system. We demonstrated a robust screening system with high sensitivity and low PND consistent with smaller validation studies

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 3%
21.2%
2
CMAJ Open
based on 12 papers
Top 0.1%
12.1%
3
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 42%
12.0%
4
JAMA
based on 17 papers
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 3%
4.8%
6
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 12%
2.6%
7
Trials
based on 24 papers
Top 1%
2.6%
8
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 0.6%
2.0%
9
Emergency Medicine Journal
based on 20 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
10
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 2%
1.7%
11
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
12
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 8%
1.7%
13
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 9%
1.4%
14
Frontiers in Pediatrics
based on 24 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
15
Genetics in Medicine
based on 57 papers
Top 5%
0.9%
16
JMIR Research Protocols
based on 18 papers
Top 3%
0.9%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 6%
0.9%
18
EClinicalMedicine
based on 21 papers
Top 0.9%
0.9%
19
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 18%
0.9%
20
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 27%
0.9%
21
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 86%
0.7%
22
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
based on 20 papers
Top 1%
0.7%
23
The Journal of Nutrition
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
0.7%
24
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
based on 19 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
26
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
27
British Journal of General Practice
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Journal of Personalized Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
30
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 15%
0.7%