Prenatal Testing, Cancer Risk and the
Overdiagnosis Dilemma
By Ainsley Newson and Stacy Carter,
BioNews
| 04. 13. 2015
In March, US company
Sequenom revealed that its
MaterniT21 non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) has detected potential cancer in some pregnant women (see
BioNews 793). As well as receiving information about their fetus, around 40 of the 400,000 or so women who have had this test have been informed that they may have cancer. One example of this was Dr Eunice Lee, who had investigations following an abnormal NIPT result that identified a 7cm colorectal tumour, which was then surgically removed.
This is a good thing, right? Women in the prime of their lives receiving information that may catch a cancer early. But, we suggest, it is not this simple. So-called liquid biopsies lead to ethical issues that go beyond the matter of using a test for one thing and finding out about something else. They are also a prime example of the problem of overdiagnosis. Before diving into this particular biopsy pool, we need to think carefully about what might be under the surface.
Read more...
Related Articles
By Rachel Hall, The Guardian | 11.20.2025
Couples are needlessly going through IVF because male infertility is under-researched, with the NHS too often failing to diagnose treatable causes, leading experts have said.
Poor understanding among GPs and a lack of specialists and NHS testing means male infertility...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
