Cell Free DNA Screening is not a Simple Blood Test
By SMFM,
Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine
| 12. 18. 2014
A recent article in the Boston Globe presents a disturbing picture of prenatal testing, in a report describing how “Oversold prenatal tests spur some to choose abortions.” The article goes on to discuss prenatal screening with cell free DNA, and to present a number of patient cases in which the screening test indicated that a patient was at high risk for aneuploidy when in fact, the fetus was normal.
It is important for providers to remember that cell free DNA is a screening test, and does not have the diagnostic accuracy of amniocentesis. By its very nature, a screening test does not tell with 100% certainty whether or not a fetus will be affected by a given disorder. Unfortunately, in part because of the high stakes in this very competitive market, the tests are being presented as having >99% accuracy, the same accuracy as is used to describe amniocentesis and CVS.
While the detection rates for trisomy 21 are very high, and the false positive rate is very low, the test is less accurate and effective for detection...
Related Articles
By Rob Stein, NPR [cites CGS' Katie Hasson] | 08.06.2025
A Chinese scientist horrified the world in 2018 when he revealed he had secretly engineered the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies.
His work was reviled as reckless and unethical because, among other reasons, gene-editing was so new...
By Susanna Smith, Genetic Frontiers | 07.28.2025
Key Topics
How does the American far right view genetics and genetic technologies?
What is the history of the American cultural pursuit of trying to choose smarter children? What has science shown us about the relationship of heredity and intelligence...
By Arthur Caplan and James Tabery, Scientific American | 07.28.2025
An understandable ethics outcry greeted the June announcement of a software platform that offers aspiring parents “genetic optimization” of their embryos. Touted by Nucleus Genomics’ CEO Kian Sadeghi, the $5,999 service, dubbed “Nucleus Embryo,” promised optimization of...
By John H. Evans, Craig Callender, Neal K. Devaraj, Farren J. Isaacs, and Gregory E. Kaebnick, Issues in Science and Technology | 07.04.2025
The controversy around a ban on “mirror life” should lead to a more nuanced public conversation about how to manage the benefits and risks of precursor biotechnologies.
About five years ago, the five of us formed a discussion group to...