The importance of pre- and post-test counseling for prenatal cell-free DNA screening for common fetal aneuploidies

References

• Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Womens Health. 2015;7:113–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minear MA, Lewis C, Pradhan S, et al. Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(10):959–967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, et al. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(3):302–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang E, Batey A, Struble C, et al. Gestational age and maternal weight effects on fetal cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:662–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwarsson E, Jacobsson B, Dagerhamn J, et al. Analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in a general pregnant population and in a high risk population - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(1):7–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker BS, Nelson RE, Jackson BR, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of first trimester non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomies in the United States. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teitelbaum L, Metcalfe A, Clarke G, et al. Costs and benefits of non-invasive fetal RhD determination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:84–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahoo T, Hovanes K, Strecker MN, et al. Expanding noninvasive prenatal testing to include microdeletions and segmental aneuploidy: cause for concern? Letter to the Editor. Genet Med. 2016;18(3):275–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaffer BL, Norton ME. Cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy and microdeletion syndromes. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018;45(1):13–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose NC, Benn P, Milunsky A. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 1: should NIPT routinely include microdeletions/microduplications? Prenat Diagn. 2016;36:10–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valderramos SG, Rao RR, Scibetta EW, et al. Cell-free DNA screening in clinical practice: abnormal autosomal aneuploidy and microdeletion results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):626.e1–626.e10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monni G, Iuculano A, Zoppi MA. Screening and invasive testing in twins. J Clin Med. 2014;3(3):865–882.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liao H, Liu S, Wang H. Performance of non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies: a meta-analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(9):874–882.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Genetics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Committee Opinion nro 640; 2015 Sept. (reaffirmed 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, et al., on behalf of the ACMG Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Work Group. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2016;18:1056–1065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Opstal D, Srebniak MI, Polak J, et al. False negative NIPT results: risk figures for chromosomes 13, 18 and 21 based on chorionic villi results in 5967 cases and literature review. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindquist A, Poulton A, Halliday J, et al. Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(4):487–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen OB, Vogel I, Ekelund C, et al., Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group; Danish Clinical Genetics Study Group. Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. . Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(3):265–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig TS, Ambye L, Sørensen S, et al. Discordant non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) – a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(6):527–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reimers RM, Mason-Suares H, Little SE, et al. When ultrasound anomalies are present: an estimation of the frequency of chromosome abnormalities not detected by cell-free DNA aneuploidy screens. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38(4):250–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel I, Petersen OB, Christensen R, et al. Chromosomal microarray as primary diagnostic genomic tool for pregnancies at increased risk within a population-based combined first-trimester screening program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(4):480–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund IC, Christensen R, Petersen OB, et al. Chromosomal microarray in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):95–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Joosten M, Knapen MFCM, et al. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(4):445–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen M, Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, et al. Nuchal translucency distributions for different chromosomal anomalies in a large unselected population cohort. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(1):49–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colosi E, Musone R, Filardi G, et al. First trimester fetal anatomy study and identification of major anomalies using 10 standardized scans. J Prenat Med. 2015;9(3–4):24–28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stefanovic V, Äyräs O, Eronen M, et al. Clinical utility of nuchal translucency screening. Res Rep Neonatol. 2014;4:169–176.
   Google Scholar
• Äyräs O, Tikkanen M, Eronen M, et al. Increased nuchal translucency and pregnancy outcome: a retrospective study of 1063 consecutive singleton pregnancies in a single referral institution. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:856–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter TC, Rose NC. How to integrate cell-free DNA screening with sonographic markers for aneuploidy: an update. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(4):906–912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanovic V. Soft markers for aneuploidy following reassuring first trimester screening: what should be done? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(2):151–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Opstal D, Srebniak MI. Cytogenetic confirmation of a positive NIPT result: evidence-based choice between chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis depending on chromosome aberration. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2016;16(5):513–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grati FR. Implications of fetoplacental mosaicism on cell‐free DNA testing: a review of a common biological phenomenon. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(4):415–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dar P, Curnow KJ, Gross SJ, et al. Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):527.e1–527.e17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutgendorf MA, Stoll KA. Why 99% may not be as good as you think it is: limitations of screening for rare diseases. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(7):1187–1189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll K, Kubendran S, Cohen SA. The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: keeping up in the era of precision medicine. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018;178(1):24–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormond KE, Laurino MY, Barlow‐Stewart K, et al. Genetic counseling globally: where are we now? Am J Med Genet. 2018;178(1):98–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoskovec JM, Bennett RL, Carey ME, et al. Projecting the supply and demand for certified genetic counselors: a workforce study. J Genet Couns. 2018;27(1):16–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin L, Gitsels-van der Wal JT, de Boer MA, et al. Introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test: A survey among Dutch midwives about their role as counsellors. Midwifery. 2018;56:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxenford K, Daley R, Lewis C, et al. Development and evaluation of training resources to prepare health professionals for counselling pregnant women about non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome: a mixed methods study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):132.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Colicchia LC, Holland CL, Tarr JA, et al. Patient–health care provider conversations about prenatal genetic screening: recommendation or personal choice. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):1145–1152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gammon BL, Otto L, Wick M, et al. Implementing group prenatal counseling for expanded noninvasive screening options. J Genet Couns. 2017 Dec 15. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI:10.1007/s10897-017-0178-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Saller DN, Fraer LM, et al. Investigating Pregnancy Outcomes After Abnormal Cell‐Free DNA Test Results. J Genet Counsel. 2018. DOI:10.1007/s10897-018-0219-7
   Google Scholar
• Chitty LS, Wright D, Hill M, et al. Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units. BMJ. 2016;354:i3426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill M, Barrett A, Choolani M, et al. Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome? Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(13):1281–1290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell RM, Agatisa PK, Mercer MB, et al. The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(6):499–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wald NJ, Huttly WJ, Bestwick JP, et al. Prenatal reflex DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13. Genet Med. 2017 Nov 9. Epub ahead of print. DOI:10.1038/gim.2017.188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wald NJ. Prenatal reflex DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18(5):399–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomaki GE, Eklund EE, Neveux LM, et al. Evaluating first trimester maternal serum screening combinations for Down syndrome suitablefor use with reflexive secondary screening via sequencing of cell freeDNA: high detection with low rates of invasive procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:789–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wald NJ, Bestwick JP. Prenatal reflex DNA screening for Down syndrome: enhancing the screening performance of the initial first trimester test. Prenat Diagn. 2016 Apr;36(4):328–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevilacqua E, Gil MM, Nicolaides KH, et al. Performance of screening for aneuploidies by cell-free DNA analysis of maternal blood in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):61–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oepkes D, Yaron Y, Kozlowski P, et al. Counseling for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what pregnant women may want to know. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs A, Blanchard L, Buchanan A, et al. Recommended pre-test counseling points for noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA: a 2015 perspective. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(10):968–971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grömminger S, Erkan S, Schöck S, et al. The influence of low molecular weight heparin medication on plasma DNA in pregnant women. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(11):1155–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaron Y. The implications of non-invasive prenatal testing failures: a review of an under-discussed phenomenon. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(5):391–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benn P, Valenti E, Shah S, et al. Factors associated with informative redraw after an initial no result in noninvasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(2):428–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker BS, Jackson BR, LaGrave D, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(5):440–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbrother G, Burigo J, Sharon T, et al. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(7):1160–1164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparks TN, Caughey AB. How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing? Semin Perinatol. 2018;42(5):275–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manzanares S, Benítez A, Naveiro-Fuentes M, et al. Accuracy of fetal sex determination on ultrasound examination in the first trimester of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 2016;44(5):272–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson M, Berglund M, Jarl E, et al. Do pregnant women want to know the sex of the expected child at routine ultrasound and are they interested in sex selection? Ups J Med Sci. 2017;122(4):254–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall S, Reid E, Marteau TM. Attitudes towards sex selection for non‐medical reasons: a review. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26(7):619–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui NBY, Kadir RA, Chan KCA. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of hemophilia by microfluidics digital PCR analysis of maternal plasma DNA. Blood. 2011;117(13):3684–3691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadir RA, Davies J, Winikoff R. Pregnancy complications and obstetric care in women with inherited bleeding disorders. Haemophilia. 2013;19(Suppl. 4):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primacio R, Milot H, Jacob C. Early fetal sex determination using cell-free DNA in micro-volume of maternal plasma. J Preg Child Health. 2017;4:6.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchi DW. At-home fetal DNA gender testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(2,pt1):216–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javitt GH. Pink or blue? The need for regulation is black and white. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(1):13–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devaney SA, Palomaki GE, Scott JA, et al. Noninvasive fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;306(6):627–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd PA, Loane M, Garne E, et al. EUROCAT working group. Sex chromosome trisomies in Europe: prevalence, prenatal detection and outcome of pregnancy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19(2):231–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang B, Lu BY, Yu B, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal common sex chromosome aneuploidies from maternal blood. J Int Med Res. 2017;45(2):621–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group, Viuff MH, Stockholm K, et al. Only a minority of sex chromosome abnormalities are detected by a national prenatal screening program for Down syndrome. Hum Reprod 2015;30(10):2419–2426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scibetta EW, Gaw SL, Rao RR, et al. Clinical accuracy of abnormal cell-free fetal DNA results for the sex chromosomes. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(13):1291–1297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mezei G, Papp C, Tóth-Pál E, et al. Factors influencing parental decision making in prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(1):94–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mennuti MT, Chandrasekaran S, Khalek N, et al. Cell-free DNA screening and sex chromosome aneuploidies. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(10):980–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman AR, Benn PA. Noninvasive prenatal testing for early sex identification: a few benefits and many concerns. Perspect Biol Med. 2013;56(4):530–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson EJ, Scott FP, McLennan AC. Sex discordance identification following non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(13):1298–1304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iruretagoyena JI, Grady M, Shah D. Discrepancy in fetal sex assignment between cell free fetal DNA and ultrasound. J Perinatol. 2015;35(3):229–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Diderich KE, Noomen P, et al. Abnormal non-invasive prenatal test results concordant with karyotype of cytotrophoblast but not reflecting abnormal fetal karyotype. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):109–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balslev-Harder M, Jørgensen FS, Kjaergaard S, et al. The length of Y-chromosomal sequence reads in noninvasive prenatal testing reflect allogeneic bone marrow transplant. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(8):843–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilberman D, Parikh LI, Skinner M, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of androgen insensitivity syndrome using cell-free fetal DNA testing. Letter to the Editor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):114–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franasiak JM, Yao X, Ashkinadze E, et al. Discordant embryonic aneuploidy testing and prenatal ultrasonography prompting androgen insensitivity syndrome diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):383–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neofytou M, Brison N, Van Den Bogaert K, et al. Maternal liver transplant: another cause of discordant fetal sex determination using cell-free DNA. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38(2):148–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield N, Boogert T, McLennan A. Prenatal diagnosis of a 46,XX male following noninvasive prenatal testing. Clin Case Rep. 2015;3(10):849–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adam MP, Fechner PY, Ramsdell LA, et al. Ambiguous genitalia: what prenatal genetic testing is practical? Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(6):1337–1343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, et al. Women’s choices for invasive or non-invasive testing: influence of gestational age and service delivery. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(13):1217–1224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaides KH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, et al. Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making by pregnant women about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment of risk for trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(2):322–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, et al. Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women’s choice in prenatal testing. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen A, Lillrank PM, Tenhunen H, et al. Context-based patient choice management in healthcare. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2018;31(1):52–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bay Lund IC, Becher N, Petersen OB, et al. Preferences for prenatal testing among pregnant women, partners and health professionals. Dan Med J. 2018;65(5):A5486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beulen L, Grutters JPC, Faas BHW, et al. Women’s and healthcare professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:549–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Schendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, et al. Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(12):1345–1350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verweij EJ, Oepkes D, de Boer MA. Changing attitudes towards termination of pregnancy for trisomy 21 with non‐invasive prenatal trisomy testing: a population‐based study in Dutch pregnant women. Research Letter Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(4):397–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, et al. Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: a mixed-method study of women’s choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(119):13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kosec V, Zec I, Tislarić-Medenjak D, et al. Pregnant women’s knowledge and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: croatian multicentric survey. Coll Antropol. 2013;37(2):483–489.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norton M. Noninvasive prenatal testing to analyze the fetal genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Dec 13;113(50):14173–14175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefkowitz RB, Tynan JA, Liu T, et al. Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;215(2):227.e1-227.e16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheffer P, van der Schoot C, Page‐Christiaens G, et al. Noninvasive fetal blood group genotyping of rhesus D, c, E and of K in alloimmunised pregnant women: evaluation of a 7‐year clinical experience. Bjog. 2011;118:1340–1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrell A, Stergiotou I. Cell-free DNA testing: inadequate implementation of an outstanding technique. Opinion. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:508–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warsof SL, Larion S, Abuhamad AZ. Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:972–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Wert G, Dondorp W, Bianchi DW. Fetal therapy for Down syndrome: an ethical exploration. Prenat Diagn. 2017 Mar;37(3):222–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guedj F, Bianchi DW, Delabar JM. Prenatal treatment of Down syndrome: a reality? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr;26(2):92–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dan S, Yuan Y, Wang Y. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of lethal skeletal dysplasia by targeted capture sequencing of maternal plasma. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Götherström C, Westgren M, Shaw SW. Pre- and postnatal transplantation of fetal mesenchymal stem cells in osteogenesis imperfecta: a two-center experience. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2014 Feb;3(2):255–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurik FF, Lamain-de Ruiter M, Javadi A, et al. Absolute first trimester cell-free DNA levels and their associations with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prenat Diagn. 2016 Dec;36(12):1104–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Boeckel SR, Davidson DJ, Normn JE, et al. Cell-free fetal DNA and spontaneous preterm birth. Reproduction. 2018;155:R137–R145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dharajiya NG, Grosu DS, Farkas DH, et al. Incidental detection of maternal neoplasia in noninvasive prenatal testing. Clin Chem. 2018 Feb;64(2):329–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar