Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews


Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



King's College London - Health: More than a medical matter






Cell-free fetal DNA: testing the waters

29 September 2008

By Ailsa Stevens

Science Information Officer, Progress Educational Trust

Appeared in BioNews 477
A decade ago, it was found that the blood of pregnant women contains DNA from the fetus. The discovery of this 'free fetal DNA' (ffDNA) has led to the development of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis, where genetic characteristics of the fetus can be analysed a mere few weeks into pregnancy by studying a sample of the mother's blood.

Many experts believe ffDNA testing will put an end to the anguish couples experience when making the very difficult decision of whether or not to test their unborn child for a genetic condition, by providing a safe alternative to invasive procedures, such as amniocentesis, which carries a risk of miscarriage. An added benefit of ffDNA testing is that it can be carried out much earlier in the pregnancy, giving the couple longer to decide whether or not to terminate an affected pregnancy or to gather more information on the implications of bringing an affected child into the world.

However, there is still much concern that the emergence of a test with no negative repercussions for mother or baby will lead to an increase in abortions, with some parents deciding to terminate for trivial reasons, such as gender or minor disability. The Daily Mail reported last week that '[ffDNA testing] has raised fresh fears over 'designer babies'' (1), though what evidence there is to suggest it will inevitably lead to parents wanting anything more than a 'healthy' baby is open to scrutiny.

These issues were the focus of a debate jointly organised by the Progress Educational Trust and the Royal Society of Medicine. Held on 23 September at the Royal Society of Medicine, the event attracted a diverse audience, including members of the public, health professionals, scientists and policy makers, who gathered to witness three experts - Lynn Chitty, Senior Lecturer in Genetics and Fetal Medicine at the Institute of Child Health, Jane Fisher, Director of Antenatal Results and Choices, and Ainsley Newson, Lecturer in Biomedical Ethics at the University of Bristol - explain the science, explore the ethics and consider the future of free fetal DNA testing.

The debate was expertly chaired by Tessa Homfray, Consultant in Clinical Genetics at St George's Hospital Medical School.

Lyn Chitty opened the debate with an explanation of the technology behind ffDNA testing. She presented data, collected with colleagues from University College Hospital, showing that this can now reliably be used to determine the sex and blood type of the fetus, making it easier to anticipate sex-linked genetic disorders and Rhesus disease. Although, at present, the technology is only suitable for detecting genetic markers not present in the mother, she told the audience that in the future it could be possible to offer ffDNA testing for the diagnosis of a wide-range of single gene disorders, for which the baby's genetic makeup may differ only slightly from the mother's.

Jane Fisher highlighted that, unlike other non-invasive prenatal tests such as ultrasound and serum screening, ffDNA testing can offer a definitive diagnosis which is available to the parents very early on in pregnancy. She emphasised that the delivery of a positive diagnosis has an enormous impact at any time in pregnancy, but that if couples undergo the test at an early stage, without really considering the implications, they may not be fully prepared to make an informed decision about what they would do in the event that the test is positive. Given that such information might be gleaned from something as simple as a blood test, set into motion by little more than a prick on the woman's finger at a stage when she is physically and emotionally new to the pregnancy, she questioned what impact this might have on how a couple might react to positive results.

Finally, Ainsley Newson presented the ethical aspects of the debate, weighing up the advantages of safe accurate testing at an earlier stage in pregnancy, against the disadvantages of having less time to ensure that the couple are able to make an informed decision about what to do in the event of a positive result and whether or not this raises the prospect of increased terminations on the grounds of disability, sex or non-paternity. She also questioned how ffDNA testing should be regulated, raising concerns about the possibility of patients accessing the test over the Internet, without proper clinical oversight.

The talks provoked much debate, with a wide range of thought-provoking comments from the floor and panel.

Several commentators deliberated how the technology might be regulated when, in theory at least, the test could be provided 'direct-to-consumer' using just a tiny pinprick of blood sent through the post. While there was wide agreement that the testing should not be offered without extensive pre- and post-test counselling to ensure that couples fully understand its implications, speakers acknowledged that the simplicity of the test did indeed create a problem for its regulation. One commentator, a UK lawyer, suggested that the US model could be adopted, where laboratories are under obligation to insist that patients have undergone rigorous counselling, though it is not their responsibility to police nor monitor this practice.

Another person expressed concern that ffDNA testing might increase the incidence of terminations and questioned whether it was in fact ethically sound to distinguish between social sex selection and selecting against, for example, a child with Down syndrome. In response, Ainsley Newson emphasised that, given the complexity of cases, each should be evaluated in the context of the parent's own values and solely on a case by case basis. Tessa Homfray pointed out that, despite the introduction of prenatal testing, the number of babies being born with Down syndrome is still increasing, probably partly due to increased parental age.

Another hotly debated topic was the concern that selecting against certain disabilities could negatively impact members of society currently living with such conditions. Ainsley Newson felt that an increase in the number of terminations for certain disabilities could indeed decrease the value of members of society living with that disability, by making them less visible and therefore less likely to be granted necessary resources. Elaborating on this point, Jane Fisher explained that even when faced with a potentially devastating diagnosis, parents still sometimes choose to go ahead with the pregnancy, suggesting that they are unlikely to entertain the opportunity to test for more and more trivial reasons, just because it becomes safe and feasible for them to do so.

Overall, most participants agreed that ffDNA testing offers tremendous benefit to patients and medical practitioners alike, and holds considerable future promise. Nonetheless concerns over the technique, including its accuracy, its potential applications and its regulation, must be fully evaluated before allowing it to enter routine clinical care. In the meantime, it will be the responsibility of health professionals to manage patient expectations, by stressing that, despite media hype, ffDNA testing will not be ready for the clinic for some five years or more.

 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

07 May 2013 - by James Brooks 
I know what they say about yesterday's news and today's fish and chip paper but what I'm about to tell you is six months old and still a little way off as a headline... [Read More]
25 March 2013 - by Dr Colin Gavaghan 
Being a bioethicist in the Antipodes is becoming a dangerous business these days. Just over a year ago, the publication, by two Australian academics, of a paper exploring the acceptability of 'post-birth abortion' led to media furore, hate mail and even death threats to the authors... [Read More]
17 January 2011 - by Owen Clark 
New research suggests that Down's syndrome could be detected using genetic screening, avoiding the need for invasive detection procedures.... [Read More]
16 February 2009 - by Dr Philippa Brice 
Cell-free fetal nucleic acids - DNA or the related molecule RNA - are present in the blood. As has previously been reviewed, the discovery that a small proportion of the cell-free nucleic acids in the mother's blood during pregnancy actually comes from the fetus paved the way for new techniques to exploit... [Read More]
13 October 2008 - by Lorna Stewart 
Scientists at Stanford University in California, US have developed a new non-invasive prenatal test for Down's syndrome. Stephen Quake and colleagues successfully identified presence and absence of fetal chromosomal abnormality in 18 pregnant women from maternal blood samples. The work is published this month in the journal... [Read More]

15 September 2008 - by Tessa Homfray 
The holy grail of prenatal diagnosis has been the identification of chromosome and single gene abnormalities through maternal blood sampling. This would allow safe accurate prenatal diagnosis, requiring much lower operator skills, and automation is potentially possible, making it cost-effective. In contrast, standard prenatal screening involves ultrasound and biochemical risk... [Read More]
15 September 2008 - by Jane Fisher 
Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC) is the only UK charity providing non-directive information and support to parents before, during and after antenatal testing and when an abnormality is diagnosed in an unborn baby. We have 20 years' experience of talking to parents on our National Helpline on all aspects of... [Read More]

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to Login or Register to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

 


 

- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
RISK ASSESSMENT:
BREAST CANCER, PREDICTION AND SCREENING
FREE public event in central London, 6.30pm on Thursday 8 May 2014 - find out more HERE

ANNIVERSARY APPEAL
Please donate HERE, so that the Progress Educational Trust can continue throughout 2014 (and beyond) while keeping BioNews FREE for you to read

The Progress Educational Trust was shortlisted for the Charity Times Awards 2011

Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE, and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation