Author(s): Yousef Al-Hajaya

Email(s): yousef.hajaya@mutah.edu.jo

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00630   

Address: Yousef Al-Hajaya*
Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Mutah University, Karak, 61710, Jordan.
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Volume - 19,      Issue - 10,     Year - 2026


ABSTRACT:
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a method that uses cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood sample to detect common fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. It has been recognized as the most clinically robust screening method and widely used worldwide. Although clinical validation and implementation of NIPT studies have consistently demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21(Down syndrome), trisomy 18(Edwards syndrome), and trisomy 13(Patau syndrome) and sex chromosomes, evidence reflecting real-world implementation in Middle Eastern cohorts remains limited, especially in Jordan. This study aimed to evaluate the real world clinical implementation, distributions of fetal fractions, and screening outcomes of NIPT in a cohort of pregnancies in Jordan. A retrospective observational study was performed on 255 NIPT results obtained from a single diagnostic laboratory in Jordan. Collected variables included maternal age, gestational age at testing, fetal fraction, conception status [natural or in vitro fertilization (IVF)], and final screening result. NIPT results were classified as low risk, high risk, or no result (inconclusive). Descriptive statistics were used, and comparisons between low-risk and high-risk groups were performed using Welch’s t-test and Fisher’s exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A two-sided P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Among 255 NIPT tests performed, 87.5% (n=223) generated reportable result and were included in the final analysis. The mean maternal age was 33.28 years, and the median gestational age at testing was 11 weeks. The overall screen-positive rate was 3.59% (8/223). Trisomy 21 was the most frequently detected aneuploidy (1.79%), followed by trisomy 13(0.90%), trisomy 18(0.45%), and 47, XXY [Klinefelter syndrome] (0.45%). Advanced maternal age (=35 years) was not significantly associated with increased screen-positive rates (p=0.86). Notably, mean fetal fraction was significantly lower in screen-positive cases compared with low-risk cases (7.86% vs 9.91%; P = 0.008). In this real world Middle Eastern cohort, NIPT demonstrated screening outcome distributions consistent with established international data. Lower fetal fraction was significantly associated with screen-positive results. However, it was found no significant association between advanced maternal age and screen-positive status. The results presented in the current study support the effective integration of NIPT in routine prenatal care in Middle Eastern, particularly in Jordan and provide a critical region specific NIPT performance data.


Cite this article:
Yousef Al-Hajaya. Real-World Performance and Screening Outcomes of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Jordanian Pregnant Women. Research Journal Pharmacy and Technology. 2026;19(10):4528-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00630

Cite(Electronic):
Yousef Al-Hajaya. Real-World Performance and Screening Outcomes of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Jordanian Pregnant Women. Research Journal Pharmacy and Technology. 2026;19(10):4528-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00630   Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2026-19-10-6


REFERENCES:
1.    Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E. Non‐invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 42(1): 15-33. 
2.    Zou Y, Feng C, Qin J, et al. Performance of expanded non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies and copy number variations: A prospective study from a single center in Jiangxi province, China. Frontiers in Genetics. 2023; 13: 1073851. 
3.    Audibert F, Wou K, Okun N, De Bie I, Wilson RD. Guideline No. 456: prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal anomalies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2024; 46(11): 102694. 
4.    Xu C, Cai X, Chen S, et al. Comprehensive non-invasive prenatal screening for pregnancies with elevated risks of genetic disorders: protocol for a prospective, multicentre study. BMJ open. 2021; 11(8): e053617. 
5.    Zhang L, Chang B, Wang L, Mijiti G, Bahetibieke K, Xue S. Evaluation of the clinical utility of NIPT-plus and analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2024; 310(6): 2973-2981. 
6.    Ye C, Duan H, Liu M, et al. The value of combined detailed first-trimester ultrasound–biochemical analysis for screening fetal aneuploidy in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2024; 310(2): 843-853. 
7.    Chitty LS. Use of cell-free DNA to screen for Down's syndrome. Mass Medical Soc; 2015. p. 1666-1667.
8.    Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. New England journal of medicine. 2014; 370(9): 799-808. 
9.    Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015; 372(17): 1589-1597. 
10.    Gil M, Quezada M, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides K. Analysis of cell‐free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta‐analysis. Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. 2015; 45(3): 249-266. 
11.    Abolfotouh MA, AlSharif SA, AlRowaily MA. Utility of Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (NIPT) as a Screening Tool for Fetal Aneuploidy in a Family Medicine Setting in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Women's Health. 2026: 1-10. 
12.    Lo YD, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. The lancet. 1997; 350(9076): 485-487. 
13.    Chiu RW. Noninvasive prenatal testing by maternal plasma DNA analysis: Current practice and future applications. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation. 2014; 74(sup244): 48-53. 
14.    Lo YMD, Chiu RWK. Genomic analysis of fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood. Annual review of genomics and human genetics. 2012; 13(1): 285-306. 
15.    Kim S-H, Hong Y-M, Park J-E, et al. The association between low fetal fraction of non-invasive prenatal testing and adverse pregnancy outcomes for placental compromise. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(10): 1020. 
16.    Canick JA, Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert‐Messerlian GM, Haddow JE. The impact of maternal plasma DNA fetal fraction on next generation sequencing tests for common fetal aneuploidies. Prenatal diagnosis. 2013; 33(7): 667-674. 
17.    Takoudes T, Hamar B. Performance of non-invasive prenatal testing when fetal cell-free DNA is absent. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014; 45(1): 112. 
18.    Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon L, Rezende JC, Nicolaides K. Fetal fraction in maternal plasma cell‐free DNA at 11–13 weeks' gestation: relation to maternal and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 41(1): 26-32. 
19.    Wang E, Batey A, Struble C, Musci T, Song K, Oliphant A. Gestational age and maternal weight effects on fetal cell‐free DNA in maternal plasma. Prenatal diagnosis. 2013; 33(7): 662-666. 
20.    Gil M, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana M, Nicolaides K. Analysis of cell‐free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta‐analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 50(3): 302-314. 
21.    Yamamoto K, Suzumori N, Miura K, et al. Clinical Implications of Low Cell‐Free DNA Fetal Fraction in Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 40,716 Pregnancies. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2025; 45(12): 1572-1579. 
22.    Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Ashoor G, Birdir C, Touzet G. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies in a routinely screened first-trimester population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012; 207(5): 374. e1-374. e6. 
23.    Sebire E, Rodrigo CH, Bhattacharya S, Black M, Wood R, Vieira R. The implementation and impact of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome into antenatal screening programmes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2024; 19(5): e0298643. 
24.    Skojo M, Srebniak MI, Henneman L, Sistermans EA, van der Meij KR. Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in a national screening program: Lessons learned from the TRIDENT studies. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2024; 97: 102543. 
25.    Connor C, Sato T, Bianchi DW, et al. Comparing the introduction and implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States: an integrative review. Prenatal diagnosis. 2025; 45(10): 1244-1264. 
26.    van Prooyen Schuurman L, de Koning HJ, Meier E, Galjaard R-JH, van Ravesteyn NT. Clinical and economic impact of genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier screening method compared to targeted NIPT and first-trimester combined testing: A modeling study. PLoS Medicine. 2025; 22(11): e1004790. 
27.    Faieta M, Falcone R, Duca S, et al. Test performance and clinical utility of expanded non‐invasive prenatal test: Experience on 71,883 unselected routine cases from one single center. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2024; 44(8): 936-945. 
28.    Chansriniyom N, Panburana P, Chantratita W, et al. Clinical performance of expanded non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidies: a real-world experience in Thailand. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2025;
29.    AlSudais H, Alshalani A, Alajaji S, et al. A decade later: Assessing pregnant women's perspectives on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Saudi Arabia. Heliyon. 2024; 10(22)
30.    Alfadhel M, AlHashem A, Kurdi W, et al. Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current Status of Adoption and Roadmap for the Future. The Application of Clinical Genetics. 2025:219-231. 
31.    Zhang H, Gao Y, Jiang F, et al. Non‐invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146 958 pregnancies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015; 45(5): 530-538. 
32.    Lu Y-s, Chen Y-y, Ding S-y, et al. Performance analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 13, 18, and 21: A large-scale retrospective study (2018–2021). Heliyon. 2024; 10(13)
33.    Qin S, Zhao Y, Deng F, et al. Performance evaluation of noninvasive prenatal testing on 24 chromosomes in a cohort of 118,969 pregnant women in Sichuan, China. Journal of International Medical Research. 2024; 52(9): 03000605241274584. 
34.    Benn P, Borrell A, Chiu RW, et al. Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2015; 35(8): 725-734. 
35.    Obstetricians ACo, Gynecologists, Medicine SfM-F. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG practice bulletin, number 226. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; 136(4): e48-e69. 
36.    Gruhn JR, Zielinska AP, Shukla V, et al. Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science. 2019; 365(6460): 1466-1469. 
37.    Krishna I, Badell M, Loucks TL, Lindsay M, Samuel A. Adverse perinatal outcomes are more frequent in pregnancies with a low fetal fraction result on noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2016; 36(3): 210-215. 
38.    Chan N, Smet ME, Sandow R, da Silva Costa F, McLennan A. Implications of failure to achieve a result from prenatal maternal serum cell‐free DNA testing: a historical cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2018; 125(7): 848-855. 
39.    Gerson KD, Truong S, Haviland MJ, O'Brien BM, Hacker MR, Spiel MH. Low fetal fraction of cell-free DNA predicts placental dysfunction and hypertensive disease in pregnancy. Pregnancy hypertension. 2019; 16: 148-153. 
40.    Yuan X, Zhou L, Zhang B, Wang H, Yu B, Xu J. Association between low fetal fraction of cell free DNA at the early second-trimester and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy Hypertension. 2020; 22: 101-108. 
41.    Clapp MA, Berry M, Shook LL, Roberts PS, Goldfarb IT, Bernstein SN. Low fetal fraction and birth weight in women with negative first-trimester cell-free DNA screening. American Journal of Perinatology. 2020; 37(01): 086-091. 
42.    Becking EC, Wirjosoekarto SA, Scheffer PG, et al. Low fetal fraction in cell‐free DNA testing is associated with adverse pregnancy outcome: analysis of a subcohort of the TRIDENT‐2 study. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2021; 41(10): 1296-1304. 
43.    Becking EC, Schuit E, van Baar de Knegt SM, et al. Association between low fetal fraction in cell‐free DNA screening and fetal chromosomal aberrations: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2023;43(7):838-853. 
44.    Flowers NJ, Love CJ, Scarff KL, et al. Assessment of placental chromosomal mosaicism during prenatal cell-free DNA screening refines positive predictive values for fetal trisomy. Clinical Chemistry. 2025; 71(10): 1036-1046. 
45.    Lau T-W, Leung TN, Chan LY, et al. Fetal DNA clearance from maternal plasma is impaired in preeclampsia. Clinical chemistry. 2002; 48(12): 2141-2146. 
46.    Stanley ZD, Besmer S, Hong L, et al. Extremes of Fetal Fraction on Noninvasive Prenatal Screening and Placental Histopathology: Is There an Association? Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(22): 8185. 
47.    Giroux S, Daryabari SS, Caron A, et al. Real life implementation of prenatal cell-free DNA screening with in-vitro fetal enrichment virtually eliminates the need for redraws and improves performance: a cohort study. Genetics in medicine open. 2025: 103458. 
48.    Norton ME, MacPherson C, Demko Z, et al. Obstetrical, Perinatal, and Genetic Outcomes Associated With Nonreportable Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening Results. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey. 2024; 79(3): 146-148.

Recomonded Articles:

Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (RJPT) is an international, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal.... Read more >>>

RNI: CHHENG00387/33/1/2008-TC                     
DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X 

1.3
2021CiteScore
 
56th percentile
Powered by  Scopus


SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Journal Policies & Information


Recent Articles




Tags


Not Available