Cell-free fetal DNA screening for detection of microdeletion syndromes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. (3rd June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Avram, Carmen M.; Shaffer, Brian L.; Sparks, Teresa N.; Allen, Allison J.; Caughey, Aaron B.
• Is Part Of: Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. Volume 34:Number 11(2021)
• Page Start: 1732
• Page End: 1740
• Publication Date: 2021-06-03
• Subjects: Cell-free DNA -- cost-effectiveness -- microdeletions -- subchromosomal -- ultrasound; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Perinatology -- Periodicals; Infants (Newborn) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Neonatology -- Periodicals; 618.2
• DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1647161
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-7058

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Fetuses with genetic copy number variants are poorly detected through traditional prenatal screening. Microdeletions and duplications are clearly identified with diagnostic testing through chromosomal microarray, and screening of a select number of microdeletions has become available with cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Our study compares the costs and outcomes of cfDNA for five pathogenic microdeletions and aneuploidy to cfDNA for aneuploidy alone in conjunction with ultrasound. Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed using TreeAge software to compare cfDNA with microdeletions versus traditional cfDNA in a theoretical cohort of 4, 000, 000 pregnancies that would also be screened with ultrasound. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from literature. The primary outcomes were the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), terminations, and procedure-related losses. Because the microdeletion results are available, but not reported, on all cfDNA testing we set the incremental cost of the cfDNA microdeletion screening test to zero at baseline and varied the cost in sensitivity analysis. Results: Screening with cfDNA for microdeletions among all pregnant women would result in 83 fewer anomalous neonates compared to traditional cfDNA with ultrasound. This reduction is due to increased diagnosis and termination of fetuses with microdeletions in this group. Routine use of cfDNA with microdeletions resulted in more procedure-related losses. cfDNA with microdeletions would improve effectiveness by 977 QALYs and decrease costs by $90, 991, 784. When we varied the specificity of the screening test, we found that it remained cost-effective down to a specificity of 91%. With a threshold of $100, 000/QALY, microdeletion screening is cost-effective to an incremental increase in cost over cfDNA for aneuploidy alone of $47.10. Conclusion: For detection of fetal subchromosomal abnormalities, use of cfDNA with microdeletions is a cost-effective strategy compared to cfDNA for aneuploidy alone in conjunction with ultrasound. Cell-free DNA for microdeletions is not currently recommended as routine screening for low-risk obstetric populations by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists or the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. The test characteristics of cfDNA with microdeletions require greater examination before being routinely recommended.