Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Research article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromosomal microarray as a primary test for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong

Authors: Claudia Ching Yan Chung, Kelvin Yuen Kwong Chan, Pui Wah Hui, Patrick Kwok Cheung Au, Wai Keung Tam, Samuel Kai Man Li, Gordon Ka Chun Leung, Jasmine Lee Fong Fung, Marcus Chun Yin Chan, Ho Ming Luk, Annisa Shui Lam Mak, Kwok Yin Leung, Mary Hoi Yin Tang, Brian Hon Yin Chung, Anita Sik Yau Kan

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chromosomal microarray (CMA) has been shown to be cost-effective over karyotyping in invasive prenatal diagnosis for pregnancies with fetal ultrasound anomalies. Yet, information regarding preceding and subsequent tests must be considered as a whole before the true cost-effectiveness can emerge. Currently in Hong Kong, karyotyping is offered free as the standard prenatal test while genome-wide array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH), a form of CMA, is self-financed. A new algorithm was proposed to use aCGH following quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) as primary test instead of karyotyping. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed algorithm versus the current algorithm for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong.

Methods

Between November 2014 and February 2016, 129 pregnant women who required invasive prenatal diagnosis at two public hospitals in Hong Kong were prospectively recruited. The proposed algorithm was performed for all participants in this demonstration study. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, cost and outcome (diagnostic rate) data were compared with that of a hypothetical scenario representing the current algorithm. Further analysis was performed to incorporate women’s willingness-to-pay for the aCGH test. Impact of government subsidies on the aCGH test was explored as a sensitivity analysis.

Results

The proposed algorithm dominated the current algorithm for prenatal diagnosis. Both algorithms were equally effective but the proposed algorithm was significantly cheaper (p ≤ 0.05). Taking into account women’s willingness-to-pay for an aCGH test, the proposed algorithm was more effective and less costly than the current algorithm. When the government subsidy reaches 100%, the maximum number of diagnoses could be made.

Conclusion

By switching to the proposed algorithm, cost saving can be achieved whilst maximizing the diagnostic rate for invasive prenatal diagnosis. It is recommended to implement aCGH as a primary test following QF-PCR to replace the majority of karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Steele MW, Breg WR Jr. Chromosome analysis of human amniotic-fluid cells. Lancet. 1966;1(7434):383–5.CrossRef Steele MW, Breg WR Jr. Chromosome analysis of human amniotic-fluid cells. Lancet. 1966;1(7434):383–5.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Caspersson T, Zech L, Johansson C, Modest EJ. Identification of human chromosomes by DNA-binding fluorescent agents. Chromosoma. 1970;30(2):215–27.CrossRef Caspersson T, Zech L, Johansson C, Modest EJ. Identification of human chromosomes by DNA-binding fluorescent agents. Chromosoma. 1970;30(2):215–27.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Armengol L, Nevado J, Serra-Juhe C, Plaja A, Mediano C, Garcia-Santiago FA, et al. Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Genet. 2012;131(3):513–23.CrossRef Armengol L, Nevado J, Serra-Juhe C, Plaja A, Mediano C, Garcia-Santiago FA, et al. Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Genet. 2012;131(3):513–23.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Harper LM, Sutton AL, Longman RE, Odibo AO. An economic analysis of prenatal cytogenetic technologies for sonographically detected fetal anomalies. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A(5):1192–7.CrossRef Harper LM, Sutton AL, Longman RE, Odibo AO. An economic analysis of prenatal cytogenetic technologies for sonographically detected fetal anomalies. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A(5):1192–7.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175–84.CrossRef Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175–84.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):6–14.CrossRef Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):6–14.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Fisher AJ, Coppinger J, Bandholz AM, Ellison JW, et al. Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(10):976–85.CrossRef Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Fisher AJ, Coppinger J, Bandholz AM, Ellison JW, et al. Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(10):976–85.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(12):1119–23.CrossRef Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(12):1119–23.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kan AS, Lau ET, Tang WF, Chan SS, Ding SC, Chan KY, et al. Whole-genome array CGH evaluation for replacing prenatal karyotyping in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87988.CrossRef Kan AS, Lau ET, Tang WF, Chan SS, Ding SC, Chan KY, et al. Whole-genome array CGH evaluation for replacing prenatal karyotyping in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87988.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Vanakker O, Vilain C, Janssens K, Van der Aa N, Smits G, Bandelier C, et al. Implementation of genomic arrays in prenatal diagnosis: the Belgian approach to meet the challenges. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57(4):151–6.CrossRef Vanakker O, Vilain C, Janssens K, Van der Aa N, Smits G, Bandelier C, et al. Implementation of genomic arrays in prenatal diagnosis: the Belgian approach to meet the challenges. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57(4):151–6.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Malan V, Lapierre JM, Egloff M, Goidin D, Beaujard MP, Maurin ML, et al. A French approach to test fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities using a customized microarray as first-tier genetic test. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2015;147(2–3):103–10.PubMed Malan V, Lapierre JM, Egloff M, Goidin D, Beaujard MP, Maurin ML, et al. A French approach to test fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities using a customized microarray as first-tier genetic test. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2015;147(2–3):103–10.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Committee on G, the Society for Maternal-Fetal M. Committee Opinion No.682: Microarrays and Next-Generation Sequencing Technology: The Use of Advanced Genetic Diagnostic Tools in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):e262–e8.CrossRef Committee on G, the Society for Maternal-Fetal M. Committee Opinion No.682: Microarrays and Next-Generation Sequencing Technology: The Use of Advanced Genetic Diagnostic Tools in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):e262–e8.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Robson SC, Chitty LS, Morris S, Verhoef T, Ambler G, Wellesley DG, et al. Evaluation of Array Comparative genomic Hybridisation in prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies: a multicentre cohort study with cost analysis and assessment of patient, health professional and commissioner preferences for array comparative genomic hybridisation [Internet]. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK423961/. Robson SC, Chitty LS, Morris S, Verhoef T, Ambler G, Wellesley DG, et al. Evaluation of Array Comparative genomic Hybridisation in prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies: a multicentre cohort study with cost analysis and assessment of patient, health professional and commissioner preferences for array comparative genomic hybridisation [Internet]. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017. Available from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK423961/​.
16.
go back to reference Vogel I, Petersen OB, Christensen R, Hyett J, Lou S, Vestergaard EM. 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):480–6.CrossRef Vogel I, Petersen OB, Christensen R, Hyett J, Lou S, Vestergaard EM. 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):480–6.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cheng HYH, Kan AS, Hui PW, Lee CP, Tang MHY. Bridging the gap from prenatal karyotyping to whole-genome array comparative genomic hybridization in Hong Kong: survey on knowledge and acceptance of health-care providers and pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(6):1109–16.CrossRef Cheng HYH, Kan AS, Hui PW, Lee CP, Tang MHY. Bridging the gap from prenatal karyotyping to whole-genome array comparative genomic hybridization in Hong Kong: survey on knowledge and acceptance of health-care providers and pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(6):1109–16.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Halgren C, Nielsen NM, Nazaryan-Petersen L, Silahtaroglu A, Collins RL, Lowther C, et al. Risks and recommendations in prenatally detected De novo balanced chromosomal rearrangements from assessment of long-term outcomes. Am J Hum Genet. 2018;102(6):1090–103.CrossRef Halgren C, Nielsen NM, Nazaryan-Petersen L, Silahtaroglu A, Collins RL, Lowther C, et al. Risks and recommendations in prenatally detected De novo balanced chromosomal rearrangements from assessment of long-term outcomes. Am J Hum Genet. 2018;102(6):1090–103.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromosomal microarray as a primary test for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong
Authors
Claudia Ching Yan Chung
Kelvin Yuen Kwong Chan
Pui Wah Hui
Patrick Kwok Cheung Au
Wai Keung Tam
Samuel Kai Man Li
Gordon Ka Chun Leung
Jasmine Lee Fong Fung
Marcus Chun Yin Chan
Ho Ming Luk
Annisa Shui Lam Mak
Kwok Yin Leung
Mary Hoi Yin Tang
Brian Hon Yin Chung
Anita Sik Yau Kan
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-2772-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020 Go to the issue