Category Archives: Screening Test

Screening Test

Direct to Consumer Laboratory Testing Survey


Recruiting Material visit
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) laboratory testing permits consumers to order laboratory tests directly from a clinical laboratory without necessarily having to work with their healthcare provider. Currently nearly 40 states allow consumers to order some or all of their laboratory tests. This model of lab testing is relatively new in the United States and little is known about its impact on consumers.

However, many health care providers are concerned that consumers do not have enough background knowledge and information to make sound decisions based on their test results. Consumers might not understand what tests to order or how to interpret the tests.   It is unclear how often consumers share their results with healthcare providers and what action, if any, is taken based on the results. In addition, frequent test ordering in a normal population increases the chances of false (positive and negative) results. False results may give consumers a false sense of security when tests are normal or result in unnecessary alarm when tests are abnormal.

Recently an article in the medical journal JAMA expressed the opinions of many in the medical field that DTC testing may actually increase the cost of healthcare in the US.

However, many feel that there is value in allowing consumers to order laboratory tests through DTC laboratories and that there is not enough data to conclude that DTC testing adversely affects patient health or healthcare costs. This was expressed in a response to the JAMA article.

In order to gather data on the effects of DTC laboratory testing, a survey is being conducted to identify the reasons American consumers use DTC laboratories. The survey will quantify how frequently consumers of DTC test services order tests, define the most frequently ordered DTC tests, identify resources consumers use to understand DTC test results, and evaluate consumer engagement with health care professionals based on DTC test results.

If you have ever ordered your own lab tests from a direct-to-consumer laboratory, you may be eligible to participate in a research study from Washington University about direct-to-consumer lab testing.

Visit here  or copy this link
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DTCtestingSurvey 
to learn more or contact Dr. Ann Gronowski at 314-362-0194.

Cell-free DNA screening tests in the general obstetrical population


DNAIt has been several years since cell-free DNA (cfDNA) tests for the detection of fetal aneuploidies became available. The first clinical studies of these tests were reported in women who, because of age or other reasons, were already at increased risk of having an affected pregnancy (i.e. “high risk” women). While these studies demonstrated the superior performance of cfDNA tests compared to traditional biochemical tests, their application to women at low risk was not encouraged because of lack of evidence regarding how well they would work in that population. A recent report on cfDNA screening tests in the general obstetrical population now provides much needed evidence.

Investigators at Brown University described several clinical utility aspects of cfDNA screening for common aneuploidies through the implementation of a statewide program called DNAFirst that offered cfDNA screening tests to the general pregnancy population in the state of Rhode Island. The clinical utility aspects that were investigated were a comparison of screening uptake rates before and after the DNAFirst program, an evaluation of a reflexive serum testing protocol for cfDNA tests that failed to produce a result, and explored women’s decision-making.

Over 11 months, 2,681 women agreed to undergo screening through 72 providers. Prior to undergoing testing, the women received information about cfDNA testing by primary obstetrical care providers. The median maternal age was 31 years and 79% of the women were younger than 35 years of age. There were 16 positive (i.e. abnormal for trisomy 21, 18, or 13) cfDNA results, 12 of which were confirmed as true positive and 4 of which were false-positive. 2,515 women had a negative screening result and all were true-negatives. 150 tests failed to produce a result (none of which were known to have trisomy). Collectively, these data produced a sensitivity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 75% and a false-positive rate of 0.15%. By comparison, the most effective biochemical screening test (the Integrated test) has a 90% detection rate, a 3% false-positive rate, and a positive predictive value of only 6%.

A small number of women who participated in the study (113) completed a survey asking them about their understanding of cfDNA testing. Women reported receiving information from their care provider in 9 minutes or less. While 85% understood that the test identified Down syndrome, 15% incorrectly thought it identified all genetic problems. 79% understood that a negative result did not rule out Down syndrome but 13% thought it did. These survey results suggest that most women do understand the basic concepts of cfDNA screening.

The study’s authors concluded that cfDNA screening tests perform very well in the general pregnancy population and that women understand the basic concepts of screening. Further, the tests were easily incorporated into routine practices. They encouraged clinical laboratories to offer cfDNA screening tests to improve access to better aneuploidy screening for the more than 2 million pregnant women in the United States who choose to undergo such testing each year.

Personalized medicine during pregnancy


Pregnancy dnaPersonalized medicine can be defined as customized disease prevention therapies and drug treatment protocols based on knowledge of an individual’s unique genetic makeup, metabolic profile and clinical presentation. So far, personalized medicine has focused on the prevention and treatment of conditions affecting adults such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.  However pregnancy is a unique situation where the unique characteristics of two individuals are being assessed: mother and infant. Remarkably few studies have addressed the therapeutic implications of recent advances in genetic technologies for the fetus. Focus has been more on prenatal diagnosis than on fetal treatment. As molecular technologies advance and costs decrease, targeted genetic testing and even whole genome sequencing of the fetus are likely to become more available. This brings with it a number of ethical issues especially as it relates to testing of the infant. For instance, there are questions of informed consent, confidentiality of results, the clinical significance of genetic polymorphisms and decisions to terminate pregnancy on the basis of these test results.

Nonetheless, there have been some interesting advances in personalized medicine, for both mother and fetus, during pregnancy. This is the focus of an upcoming symposium at the AACC meeting to be held tomorrow, July 29th, at 10:30 am in Atlanta, Georgia.  

Predicting Response to Drugs:  Sixty-four percent of women in the US are prescribed more than one drug during pregnancy (excluding vitamins). A better understanding of how drugs are metabolized during pregnancy and how they affect the fetus is clearly needed. Cytochrome P450 is the predominant class of oxidative enzymes that catalyze many types of drugs. Interestingly, the expression of a number of P450 genes is altered during pregnancy. Most notably, CYP1A2 has been shown to be decreased by 65% by the 3rd trimester. In the past several years, several studies have examined the ability to predict a woman’s response to drugs used during pregnancy, like tocolytics and anti-emetics, based on their genotype. A study by Haas, et. al. demonstrated that CYP3A5 high-expressing women had lower circulating concentrations of Nifedipine, a common tocolytic. A study by Lehmann, et. al. demonstrated that a genotype for serotonin receptor subunits 5-HT3A and 5-HT3B may play a role in hyperemesis severity and response to anti-emetics. This type of genotyping is not yet ready for prime time, but it holds promise for better utilization of medications during pregnancy.

Assessing the Fetus: We have blogged previously about cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood and its utility in predicting fetal trisomy. cffDNA can also be used to assess fetal Rhesus D (RhD) status. This method can be used to determine the fetal RhD genotype when the mother has clinically significant alloantibody to the D antigen AND the father is heterozygous for RhD or is not available for testing. Testing such as this is useful because instead of treating all RhD-negative women with RhD immunoglobulin, treatment can be targeted to mothers that carry RhD-positive fetuses. This type of approach can conserve supplies of therapeutic anti-D, prevent unnecessary administration of a human-derived blood product to a vulnerable patient group, and avoid subjecting RhD-positive infants to intensive antenatal monitoring to predict and treat fetal anemia. Interestingly, despite the fact that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists support the use of cffDNA for RhD assessment, it is not a widely used clinical tool in the United States.

Predicting Viability: Not all personalized medicine is genetic. Personalized medicine can also be used to guide treatments. With this in mind, there are several publications that suggest novel uses for hCG testing. The first takes advantage of “semi-quantitative” urine hCG devices. These devices are similar to home pregnancy devices, but they essentially contain multiple detection strips with different cutoffs that can give the reader a rough estimate of the urine hCG concentration (>25, >100, >500, >2000 or >10,000). Several studies have examined the use of these devices in a home setting following medical abortion as a replacement for clinic follow-up. If the woman is able to demonstrate decreasing hCG concentrations at home, she can avoid a return visit to the clinic. This can reduce the burden on the healthcare setting, but it could also help women for whom getting to a clinic is difficult because of work or family commitments or who live in a remote geography. Both studies demonstrate that use of semi-quantitative hCG devices in this setting had 100% sensitivity to detect unsuccessful abortions. The second interesting use for hCG measurement is in the prediction of fetal viability. Several studies have suggested that urine and serum concentrations of hyperglycosylated hCG (hCG-H) are low in women with pregnancy failure. These studies suggest that measurements of serum or urine hCG-H to detect failed pregnancy is 60-70% sensitive and 97-100% specific (links here and here). These studies are small and there is not currently a readily accessible assay for hCG-H, but it is intriguing to think about the possibility of a test that could distinguish viable from non-viable pregnancies especially in an emergency setting when physicians are making treatment decisions and have to take into account potential risks to the fetus.

Can a personalized approach improve IVF success rates?


Test Tube Baby

This post was written by Robert D. Nerenz, PhD, an assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington.

In the United States, an estimated one in seven couples experience infertility and for many of these couples, in vitro fertilization (IVF) represents their best chance of achieving pregnancy. However, IVF cycles constitute a significant expense (approximately $12,500 per cycle), disrupt patients’ daily lives and only result in a healthy, live birth 30% of the time! Furthermore, the majority of IVF cycles performed in the United States involve the transfer of multiple embryos. This is of particular concern because multiple embryo transfer carries a finite risk of a multiple gestation pregnancy. Bringing multiple infants to term is associated with an increased risk of poor fetal and maternal outcomes including decreased birth weight, increased rate of fetal death, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes and preterm labor. Clearly, there is a significant need to improve IVF success rates while also minimizing the likelihood of multiple gestation pregnancies.

One strategy that may accomplish both of these goals is to perform “single embryo transfer” by implanting one embryo that has a high likelihood of producing pregnancy and, ultimately, a live birth. This is the focus of an upcoming symposium at the AACC meeting to be held July 29th at 10:30 am in Atlanta, Georgia. Fertility clinics around the world currently attempt to do this by observing embryos under a microscope and choosing the best embryo on the basis of its physical appearance. Unfortunately, this approach does not provide any information about the embryo’s genetic status. This is an important limitation because aneuploidy (the gain or loss of a chromosome) is the most common cause of pregnancy loss. It is also estimated to occur in ≥10% of clinical pregnancies and becomes more frequent with increasing maternal age.

To ensure that aneuploid embryos are not selected for transfer, several research groups have developed methods collectively known as comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS). CCS involves culturing embryos for 5-6 days, removing a few cells from the trophectoderm (the outer cell layer that develops into the placenta), isolating the DNA from those cells and assessing the copy number of each chromosome using techniques such as quantitative PCR, comparative genomic hybridization, or single nucleotide polymorphism arrays. Following determination of the embryos’ genetic status, only embryos with the normal number of chromosomes are chosen for transfer. In multiple prospective, randomized controlled trials described here and here, CCS has been shown to increase the pregnancy rate and decrease the frequency of multiple gestation pregnancies. As a result, CCS is beginning to make the transition from the research setting to use with patients.

The ability to transfer only euploid embryos represents the most promising application of novel technologies to IVF but ongoing research is focused on other ways to improve the IVF success rate. Many different groups are analyzing the culture medium that embryos are grown in prior to implantation. It is hoped that this will provide information about the embryos’ metabolic health and might help identify which embryos are most likely to result in pregnancy and live birth. Other groups are evaluating endometrial gene expression profiles to assess endometrial receptivity and ultimately determine the best time to perform embryo transfer. While both of these approaches have technical limitations and are not quite ready for primetime, they have the potential to greatly improve our current standard of care and may be ready for clinical use in the near future.

Conventional aneuploidy screening remains “most appropriate” choice for general population


OpinionThe American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have updated their guidance on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening tests for fetal aneuploidy. In it, they state that any patient (i.e. women at high-risk OR low-risk for having an affected pregnancy) may choose cfDNA testing but they caution that conventional screening tests are more appropriate. This document replaces an earlier opinion, published in 2012, which clearly stated that cfDNA screening tests should not be offered to the general obstetrical population because they are considered to be at low-risk.

So ACOG went from recommending that cfDNA testing not be performed on low-risk women to say that they may choose cfDNA testing. Why the subtle change? Well, as ACOG correctly notes, the landscape of cfDNA is changing rapidly. New studies are published frequently and those that have examined the performance of cfDNA tests in  low-risk women have reported that the test performs just as well in them as it does in high-risk women.

However, they make an important point about a metric that doesn't get the attention it deserves. The positive predictive value (PPV). See here for background. Because the prevalence of fetal aneuploidy in low-risk women is lower than it is in high-risk women, a "positive" or "abnormal" test result in low-risk women is more likely to be a false-positive result. For example, a positive result in a 25-year-old woman gives a 33% chance that the fetus is affected but that chance increases to 87% in a high-risk woman.

The report also calls out the "no result" problem. cfDNA tests fail to produce a result in 1-8% of samples tested, usually due to a low amount of fetal DNA in the blood sample. It's becoming clear that women with samples that fail to produce a result are at increased risk of having an affected fetus. According to ACOG, these women she be offered diagnostic testing such as fetal karyotyping using amniotic fluid obtained by amniocentesis.

Other notable points contained within the updated guidance include:

  • Caution about not routinely performing microdeletion screening (offered by some labs) because it has not been fully validated in clinical studies.
  • Clearly indicating that a negative or normal result does not rule out the possibility of an affected fetus.
  • Providing genetic counseling to patients about test limitations and that decisions such as pregnancy termination should not be based on these screening tests.
  • A reminder that cfDNA tests do not screen for neural tube or ventral wall defects

This certainly won't be the final say that ACOG has on cfDNA aneuploidy screening tests. Indeed, they state that "It will be critical to remain abreast of this rapidly changing technology to provide patients with the most effective, accurate, and cost-conscious methods for aneuploidy screening."

Finally, an hCG blood test that can be performed at the point-of-care


Testing urine samples for the presence or absence of hCG is commonly performed in hospitals and clinics for the rapid assessment of a woman's pregnancy status. This topic has been discussed several times in this blog (see here and here).

Urine hCG tests are hugely popular because they can be performed near the patient and they are granted waived status by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

However, urine is not a suitable sample type for pregnancy assessment for many reasons, such as:

  • Urine hCG tests are prone to false-negative results.
  • hCG becomes detectable in the urine after it appears in the blood, so urine tests are not as sensitive as blood hCG tests.
  • Urine tests provide a positive/negative results whereas blood tests provide a quantitative concentration.

Because of these limitations, in particular the risk of false negative results, I've often said that urine hCG testing is inappropriate in healthcare delivery settings. Blood tests for hCG are much more reliable but they take longer to produce results because of the time required for sample transport and processing by a centralized laboratory.

Finger StickAt long last, a rapid, quantitative blood test for hCG is finally available in the US from Abbott Point of Care, Inc. on their i-STAT instrument. Naturally, people will want to know how the test performs and we recently published a paper on the analytical performance of the test.

We evaluated the test using whole blood and plasma (the sample types that were cleared for use) as well as serum. Overall, the test works quite well in all sample types and is suitable for use in healthcare settings. It provides the reliability of laboratory blood-based hCG testing but with the convenience of point-of-care testing.

There are two important limitations to note:

  1. The analytical measuring range of the i-STAT hCG test is limited to 5-2,000 IU/L. While this is similar to the measuring ranges of many laboratory hCG tests, the instruments used in labs can automatically dilute and re-test samples that have a high hCG concentration, something that the i-STAT is unable to do. When tested with the i-STAT, a sample with an hCG concentration greater than 2,000 IU/L will be reported as such. While this type of result indicates that hCG is present in the blood, not having an absolute concentration will be insufficiently informative in some clinical situations.
  2. The test is susceptible to the high-dose hook effect at an hCG concentration somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 IU/L. This means that when a sample with an extremely high hCG concentration is tested, the result can be falsely decreased. However, even though the result is falsely decreased, it is still very likely to be interpreted as "positive" and the risk of a false-negative result is extremely remote.

This type of test is long overdue in the US. The use of urine hCG testing to determine a woman's pregnancy status is fraught with difficulties and is known to cause harm to patients. Despite their problems, urine hCG testing won't be going away any time soon but the availability of a test that performs hCG blood tests close to the patient is a step in the right direction.

Momentum grows for use of cell-free DNA Down syndrome screening tests in all pregnant women


Low risk

The use of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing to screen for fetal aneuploidies has been the topic of several posts on this blog. Large clinical studies that have evaluated the performance of cfDNA tests have all arrived at the same conclusion: cfDNA testing is superior to traditional biochemical screening tests for the detection of trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and other trisomies. However, most of these studies have tested women who are considered to be at high risk (e.g. over 35 years of age or who have had an abnormal biochemical screening test) of having an affected fetus. Fewer studies have evaluated test performance in women considered to be at low risk. Because of limited data in low-risk women, the majority of professional societies recommend restricting the use of cfDNA screening tests to only high-risk women. 

This is certainly going to change, and sooner rather than later.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a very large, well-designed study that compared the performance of a cfDNA screening test to a biochemical screening test (the first trimester combined test) in an unselected population of almost 15,841 women.

The results were rather unsurprising. There were 38 pregnancies affected by Down syndrome. All 38 (100%) were identified by cfDNA testing but only 30 (79%) were identified by biochemical testing. While that was a significant difference in the detection rate there was a greater significant difference in the false-positive rates. There were 854 false-positive results from biochemical screening and only 9 from cfDNA screening. These numbers translate into a false-positive rate of 5.4% and 0.06% for biochemical and cfDNA screening, respectively.

As the proportion of true positive results divided by the number of all positive results, the positive predictive value answers the question: "What is the probability of an affected fetus given a positive result?” In this study, these predictive values were 3.4% for biochemical screening and 80.9% for cfDNA screening. Clearly, cfDNA offers a huge improvement.

I must stress (as I’ve done several times before) that cfDNA tests are screening tests. The better performance of cfDNA tests has, unfortunately, created the perception that cfDNA tests produce conclusive results and, as such, are diagnostic tests. This could not be further from the truth. Just as with a positive biochemical screening test, a positive result from cfDNA testing should be followed by invasive diagnostic testing. Consider, for example, that the positive predictive value of the cfDNA test that was reported in this study for the 14,947 low-risk women was 50%. That’s a coin toss! Without a doubt it is vastly better than biochemical screening but no woman should make a decision to terminate her pregnancy based on cfDNA testing alone.

So is cfDNA testing an appropriate Down syndrome screening strategy for low-risk women? Yes, it is. It’s just a matter of time before professional societies recognize that fact. Indeed, the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis did just that in their new position statement

Stay tuned…

Confusion over NIPT invites catastrophe


Timing is everything. A week after I wrote about false-positive NIPT results, the Boston Globe published an article titled "Oversold prenatal tests spur some to choose abortions" written by Beth Daley of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting. The article describes non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using relatively new cell free DNA tests with a focus on women who have experienced receiving incorrect results.

The article focuses on one woman who had Sequenom's MaterniT21 PLUS test that indicated her fetus had trisomy 18 or Edwards syndrome. She initially considered immediately terminating the pregnancy and her doctor helped her locate a physician who could perform the procedure the next day. Only hours later did her doctor caution her to consider diagnostic testing which confirmed the fetus did not have trisomy 18. Additional cases in the article tell of one woman who experienced a false-positive result (confirmed by diagnostic testing) but so trusted the results of the DNA test that she aborted her pregnancy anyway and a woman who experience the trauma of a false-negative result.

Stories like this indicate a clear lack of understanding regarding the limitations of NIPT and demonstrate that physicians and consumers don't always appreciate the fact that these are screening tests. In a post on its blog about the Globe article, the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine emphasizes just that by stating "It is important for providers to remember that cell free DNA is a screening test, and does not have the diagnostic accuracy of amniocentesis." They also point out that doctors who order DNA-based screening tests need to understand the test characteristics and they emphasize the role of genetic counseling for women who undergo screening for aneuploidy. The Society's statement was the focus of a follow-up piece by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.

Whether aneuploidy screening is performed using DNA-based tests or by traditional biochemical screening, it is a screening test. Neither are diagnostic tests. Abnormal results from any screening test must be followed up by diagnostic testing to confirm (or not) the results of the screening test. To be misinformed on this basic fact of laboratory medicine is to flirt with disaster.

The ugly stepsister: false positive NIPT test results


Positive Negative

© Stuart Miles – Fotolia.com

NIPT (non-invasive prenatal testing) continues to get lots of attention lately. Indeed, we've written about it extensively on this blog. None of this is suprising because NIPT is a new technology that is continually evolving. Two years ago, I wrote about NIPT here and provided information showing it's excellent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. To be clear: these tests are more accurate than traditional biochemical screening for detecting fetal aneuploides but they are still screening tests, meaning that positive (or abnormal) test results must be confirmed with diagnostic testing.

As is commonplace, with time comes experience and the lens of scruitiny has recently been focused on the positive predicitive value (PPV) of NIPT. What's a PPV? It's the proportion of true positive results divided by the number of all positive results. For NIPT testing, it answers the question: "What is the probability that a positive result means that the fetus is affected?" It is very important to stress that the PPV of any test is not intrinsic to the test. The PPV is also dependent on the prevalence of the condition in the tested population. If the condition is very rare in the tested population, then the PPV will likely be low, meaning that a positive result is more likely to be a false positive. The opposite is also true (positive test results are more likely to be "true" when the condition is highly prevalent).

NIPT is done to screen for fetal aneuploidies (extra copies of specific chromosomes) such as Down syndrome (trisomy 21), Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18), and Patau syndrome (trisomy 13). The prevelance of each of these disorders is influenced by the woman's age. As examples, the prevalence of each in a 35-year-old woman with a fetus at 10 weeks’ gestational age is 1:185, 1:470, and 1:1,500, respectively. As you might expect, the less prevalent a condition is, the more likley a positive result will be falsely positive.

This has been demonstrated for NIPT. A study published earlier this year evaluated the concordance of NIPT and cytogenetic results among cases with positive or negative NIPT results. The study examined test results from 109 consecutive specimens that were either prenatally and/or postnatally studied by fluorescence in situ hybridization, karyotyping, and/or oligo–single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray (as the definitive, or diagnostic, test). NIPT testing was performed with the Panorama (Natera, San Carlos, CA), Harmony (Ariosa Diagnostics, San Jose, CA), MaterniT21 (Sequenom, San Diego, CA), or Verifi (Illumina, Redwood City, CA).

The PPV for T21 was highest at 93% followed by a 64% PPV for T18.  The PPV for T13 was only 44%. Given the prevalence of each of these conditions, these data aren't all that surprising but they are still rather alarming. Why? Because several studies have claimed NIPT tests are >99% specific (e.g. ~1% false-positive rate). As the authors of the study described here state: "To an average clinician, the claim that a test is >99% specific leads him or her to expect that the false-positive rate will be <1%."

As I stated this above and in several other posts on this blog (but is worth emphasizing again): NIPT is a screening test, not a diagnostic test and it cannot be considered a replacement for diagnostic testing.

Screening for Down syndrome in the United States


This year marks the 30th anniversary of the use of laboratory tests to screen pregnancies for Down syndrome. The tests have evolved over the last three decades and as have their ability to detect affected fetuses. Currently there are several different lab tests available to screen for Down syndrome during pregnancy, including the recently developed cell-free DNA tests (commonly referred to as non-invasive prenatal testing, or NIPT).

How has the landscape of Down syndrome screening evolved over the last few decades? That was the question considered by investigators of a recent report that sought to determine the number of women screened for Down syndrome in the United States in 2011 and 2012, along with the type of test they received.

The results of this report were based on surveys completed by 168 laboratories that offered Down syndrome screening tests in 2011 and/or 2012 and are rather interesting:

  • Of the 4.13 million pregnancies that occur each year in the United States, approximately 72% are screened for Down syndrome.
  • The most common screening test is the quadruple test (50%) followed by the first-trimester combined test (18%), and the sequential test (14%). The other types of tests (e.g. triple test, full integrated test, and serum integrated test) were less commonly performed.
  • The 6 largest laboratories (those that screened more than 100,000 pregnancies each year) performed 61% of all screening tests.
  • The 32 smallest laboratories (those that screened fewer than 1,500 pregnancies each year) performed only 1% of all screening tests.
  • Between 2011 and 2012, the use of the first trimester and integrated testing increased by 27% and 6% and the use of the quad test decreased by 1.2%.
  • As shown in the figure below, there was an inverse relationship between the percent of laboratories that offered testing only in the second trimester (e.g. triple or quadruple tests) and the number of pregnancies screened each year.

Labs offering only 2nd trimester tests

That last bullet point is an important one because nearly 70% of women have their first prenatal visit in the first trimester and it is recommended that integrated screening be offered at this visit. However, because the number of laboratories offering only second trimester testing is much greater than the number of labs that offer all types of screening tests, this recommendation may not be easily adopted.