The Netherlands launched a nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier test offered to all pregnant women. This started on April 1, 2017 as the TRIDENT-2 study, licensed by the Dutch Ministry of Health. In the first year, NIPT was performed in 73,239 pregnancies (42% of all pregnancies), 7,239 (4%) chose first-trimester combined testing, and 54% did not participate. The number of trisomies 21 (239, 0.33%), 18 (49, 0.07%), and 13 (55, 0.08%) found in this study is comparable to earlier studies, but the Positive Predictive Values (PPV)-96% for trisomy 21, 98% for trisomy 18, and 53% for trisomy 13-were higher than expected. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 were reported on request of the pregnant women; 78% of women chose to have these reported. The number of additional findings was 207 (0.36%); these included other trisomies (101, 0.18%, PPV 6%, many of the remaining 94% of cases are likely confined placental mosaics and possibly clinically significant), structural chromosomal aberrations (95, 0.16%, PPV 32%,) and complex abnormal profiles indicative of maternal malignancies (11, 0.02%, PPV 64%). The implementation of genome-wide NIPT is under debate because the benefits of detecting other fetal chromosomal aberrations must be balanced against the risks of discordant positives, parental anxiety, and a potential increase in (invasive) diagnostic procedures. Our first-year data, including clinical data and laboratory follow-up data, will fuel this debate. Furthermore, we describe how NIPT can successfully be embedded into a national screening program with a single chain for prenatal care including counseling, testing, and follow-up.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical impact of nationwide implementation of genome‐wide non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in pregnancies at increased risk for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (TRIDENT study).MethodWomen with elevated risk based on first trimester combined testing (FCT ≥ 1:200) or medical history, not advanced maternal age alone, were offered NIPT as contingent screening test, performed by Dutch University Medical laboratories. We analyzed uptake, test performance, redraw/failure rate, turn‐around time and pregnancy outcome.ResultsBetween 1 April and 1 September 2014, 1413/23 232 (6%) women received a high‐risk FCT result. Of these, 1211 (85.7%) chose NIPT. One hundred seventy‐nine women had NIPT based on medical history. In total, 1386/1390 (99.7%) women received a result, 6 (0.4%) after redraw. Mean turn‐around time was 14 days. Follow‐up was available in 1376 (99.0%) pregnancies. NIPT correctly predicted 37/38 (97.4%) trisomies 21, 18 or 13 (29/30, 4/4 and 4/4 respectively); 5/1376 (0.4%) cases proved to be false positives: trisomies 21 (n = 2), 18 (n = 1) and 13 (n = 2). Estimated reduction in invasive testing was 62%.ConclusionIntroduction of NIPT in the Dutch National healthcare‐funded Prenatal Screening Program resulted in high uptake and a vast reduction of invasive testing. Our study supports offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

These data suggest that both the developmental arrest of a significant proportion of mosaic embryos on Day 4, and the cell death or reduced proliferation of aneuploid cells within an embryo may be responsible for the observed decrease of aneuploid blastomeres from compaction to the peri-implantation stage.

Conventional karyotyping detects chromosomal anomalies in up to 35% of pregnancies with fetal ultrasound anomalies, depending on the number and type of these anomalies. Extensive experience gained in the past decades has shown that prenatal karyotyping is a robust technique which can detect the majority of germline chromosomal anomalies. For most of these anomalies the phenotype is known. In postnatal diagnosis of patients with congenital anomalies and intellectual disability, array-CGH/SNP array has become the first-tier investigation. The higher abnormality detection yield and its amenability to automation renders array-CGH also suitable for prenatal diagnosis. As both findings of unclear significance and unexpected findings may be detected, studies on the outcome of array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis were initially performed retrospectively. Recently, prospective application of array-CGH in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies, and to a lesser extent in pregnancies referred for other reasons, was studied. Array-CGH showed an increased diagnostic yield compared to karyotyping, varying from 1–5%, depending on the reason for referral. Knowledge of the spectrum of array-CGH anomalies detected in the prenatal setting will increase rapidly in the years to come, thus facilitating pre- and posttest counseling. Meanwhile, new techniques like non-invasive prenatal diagnosis are emerging and will claim their place. In this review, we summarize the outcome of studies on prenatal array-CGH, the clinical relevance of differences in detection rate and range as compared to standard karyotyping, and reflect on the future integration of new molecular techniques in the workflow of prenatal diagnosis.