I happened to get my hands on some interesting literature on pre-natal genetic screening, literature that amply reinforces my impression that clinical genetic testing is still in the dark ages.
Let's say you (or your wife/fiance/girlfriend) are pregnant, and you're interested in taking a blood test to see if your baby is going to develop a neural tube defect, like spina bifida. Should you take the test?
In this case, it's a no-risk test (unlike amniocentesis) that involves measuring a blood protein called AFP. Here's what the pamphlet I've got says:
- There is a 1:1000 chance that your baby will have spina bifida.
- The blood test can identify 80% of spina bifida cases.
- The false positive rate for the test is 1%-3% (let's be generous and call it 1%).
Given these numbers, you're much, much more likely to have a healthy baby, but get a positive test result than you are to have an unhealthy baby and get a positive result:
Probability that your baby is healthy and the test comes up positive:
99.9% x 1% = ~0.99% - roughly 1 out of 100.
Probability that your baby has spina bifida and the test comes up positive:
0.1% x 80% = ~ 0.08% - less than 1 out of 1000
In other words, you're about 12 times more likely to get a false positive result than you are to get a true positive result. Now if there is a more reliable, non-invasive follow-up of initial false positive test, this might not be such a bad idea, but otherwise, this test doesn't appear to be that helpful.
Here's another example from the physician's office brochures I've got here: Trisomy 18, which is when a baby has an extra copy of chromosome 18.
- There is a 1 in 7500 chance (~0.013%) that your baby will have Trisomy 18
- The blood test detects 90% of trisomy cases, and has a 3.3% false positive rate.
Your chance of having a healthy baby but a positive test result is about 3%. Let's say that, after a positive test result you decide to follow-up with amniocentesis, which carries (according the the pamphlet I've got) a 1:500 risk of miscarriage.
So your risk of having a healthy baby, a false positive test result, and an amniocentesis-induced miscarriage is about 0.006%
What's your risk of having a baby with trisomy, and getting a positive test result (recall that the test picks up 90% of trisomy cases)? About 0.012%.
In other words, your risk of amniocentesis-induced miscarriage after a false positive test is fully half of your risk of having a trisomy fetus and a positive test.
People can have many reasons for taking the test - like peace of mind. If you do get a negative result, you can rest easy, but your chances of getting a false positive result are high - much higher than the chances that your baby actually has any of these conditions.
What's needed is a non-invasive way of collecting fetal DNA that doesn't put you at risk for miscarriage, followed by truly modern genetic testing - the kind that involves DNA sequencing, and which, for many Mendelian diseases (diseases caused by mutations in single genes), are much more reliable than the typical blood protein tests or quick assays for major chromosomal abnormalities.
I don't give medical advice here, but it's worth getting some before you take these tests - preferably from someone who doesn't stand to benefit financially from your decision to test.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- How Gut Bacteria Ensure A Healthy Brain – and Could Play A Role In Treating Depression
- Researchers Created A Laser Bullet To See What It Would Look Like - And Here It Is
- We're Too Late To Prevent 137,000 More Ebola Cases, Says Epidemiology Paper
- The Quote Of The Week - Shocked And Disappointed
- The Strange Organic Molecules In Titan's Atmosphere
- Type 1 Diabetes Surges In White Kids
- It Takes More Than Singing To Strike A Chord In Music Education
- "The “non-negotiable mathematical reasons” for raising the height of flood defences are in a..."
- "For background, look at Paul Bloom’s 2004 book Descartes’ Baby. This has interesting material..."
- " It is possible that survival of Ebola virus victims would be much improved if an artificial fever..."
- "Priceless! I really needed a kick in the pants to get me to laugh at myself and this post did it..."
- "You have done an immense amount of work. It would help if you added some boxes to explain how you..."
- US Ebola hysteria and money pit highlight lack of resources to confront diseases that kill far more people
- Addiction can be measured by epigenetics
- Coffee grounds turned biofuel can heat your home
- Bill and Melinda Gates on GMOs: ‘Poor farmers should not be denied choice of life-saving tools’
- Why do foodies love organics? Because they taste like McDonald’s!
- GMO milk? An enviros dream innovation that most enviros oppose
- Global boom in hydropower expected this decade
- For brain hemorrhage, risk of death is lower at high-volume hospitals
- Roman-Britons had less gum disease than modern Britons
- 'Swingers' multiple drug use heightens risk of sexually transmitted diseases
- Were clinical trial practices in East Germany questionable?