Search

Objective: A rolling circle amplification (RCA) based commercial methodology using cell-free (cf)DNA to screen for common trisomies became available in 2018. Relevant publications documented high detection but with a higher than expected 1% false positive rate. Preliminary evidence suggested assay variability was an issue. A multi-center collaboration was created to explore this further and examine whether subsequent manufacturer changes were effective. Methods: Three academic (four devices) and two commercial (two devices) laboratories provided run date, chromosome 21, 18, and 13 run-specific standard deviations, number of samples run, and reagent lot identifications. Temporal trends and between-site/device consistency were explored. Proportions of run standard deviations exceeding pre-specified caps of 0.4%, 0.4% and 0.6% were computed. Results: Overall, 661 RCA runs between April 2019 and July 30, 2022 tested 39,756 samples. In the first 24, subsequent 9, and final 7 months, proportions of capped chromosome 21 runs dropped from 39% to 22% to 6.0%; for chromosome 18, rates were 76%, 36%, and 4.0%. Few chromosome 13 runs were capped using the original 0.60%, but capping at 0.50%, rates were 28%, 16%, and 7.6%. Final rates occurred after reformulated reagents and imaging software modifications were fully implemented across all devices. Revised detection and false positive rates are estimated at 98.4% and 0.3%, respectively. After repeat testing, failure rates may be as low as 0.3%. Conclusion: Current RCA-based screening performance estimates are equivalent to those reported for other methods, but with a lower test failure rate after repeat testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Combined first‐trimester screening (cFTS) for fetal anomalies involves maternal serum screening for biochemical markers and measurement of the nuchal translucency (NT) by ultrasound. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) analyses cell‐free DNA present in a maternal blood sample for presence of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. Aims: To compare NIPS with cFTS as frontline screening in a public hospital in Australia. Materials and methods: Women were offered NIPS in addition to the usual cFTS routinely offered to all women at a public hospital in NSW, Australia. The cFTS sample was collected at ten weeks' gestation and the NIPS sample at 12 weeks' gestation at the ultrasound appointment. Results: In a low‐risk population of 997 women, frontline NIPS had a screen‐positive rate of 0.5% (5/997) vs 4.2% (42/997) with cFTS. cFTS correctly identified one trisomy 21 case and one trisomy 18 case; however, there were two trisomy 18 false negatives. Of five positive NIPS calls, four were correctly identified as trisomy 21 (one) and trisomy 18 (three); there were no NIPS false negatives. Overall, the false‐positive rate with NIPS was 0.1% vs 4.0% by cFTS. Conclusions: The lower screen‐positive rate with NIPS for common trisomies was a result of the significantly lower false‐positive rate with NIPS. Consequently, NIPS as first‐line screening, even if funded by the hospital, may provide cost savings. We believe NIPS should be used from ten weeks' gestation in conjunction with morphology ultrasound for routine first‐trimester prenatal management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although nearly all noninvasive prenatal testing is currently based on analyzing circulating maternal cell-free DNA, the technical methods usedvary considerably. We review the different methods. Based on validation trials and clinical experience, there are mostly relatively small differences in screening performance for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in singleton pregnancies. Recent reports show low no-call rates for all methods, diminishing its importance when choosing a laboratory. However, method can be an important consideration for twin pregnancies, screening for sex chromosome abnormalities, microdeletion syndromes, triploidy, molar pregnancies, rare autosomal trisomies, and segmental imbalances, and detecting maternal chromosome abnormalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Noninvasive prenatal screening with cell-free DNA is now considered a first-line screening for common aneuploidies. Advancements in existing laboratory techniques now allow to interrogate the entirety of the fetal genome, and many commercial laboratories have expanded their screening panels to include screening for rare autosomal aneuploidies and copy number variants. Here, we review the currently available data on the performance of fetal cell-free DNA to detect rare autosomal aneuploidies and copy number variants that are associated with clinically significant microdeletion and microduplication syndromes and the current position of medical societies on routine screening for these syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has high detection for the common fetal autosomal aneuploidies, but is not diagnostic. The positive predictive value should be utilized in counseling after a positive cell-free DNA screen, and diagnostic testing should be offered for confirmation. cfDNA screening does not report a result in ~3% of cases; nonreportable results indicate an increased risk for aneuploidy and some adverse perinatal outcomes. False-positive cfDNA screening occurs due to confined placental mosaicism, maternal copy number variants, mosaicism, and cancer. Pretest education and counseling should be provided with emphasis on the potential benefits, risks, and limitations before cfDNA screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discovery of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood and the rapid development of massively parallel sequencing have revolutionized prenatal testing from invasive to noninvasive. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) based on cffDNA enables the detection of fetal trisomy through sequencing, comparison, and bioassays. Its accuracy is better than that of traditional screening methods, and it is the most advanced clinical application of high-throughput sequencing technologies. However, the existing sequencing methods are limited by high costs and complex sequencing procedures. These limitations restrict the availability of NIPS for pregnant women. Many amplification methods have been developed to overcome the limitations of sequencing methods. The rapid development of non-sequencing methods has not been accompanied by reviews to summarize them. In this review, we initially describe the detection principles for sequencing-based NIPS. We summarize the rapidly evolving amplification technologies, focusing on the need to reduce costs and simplify the procedures. To ensure that the testing systems are feasible and that the testing processes are reliable, we expand our vision to the clinic. We evaluate the clinical validity of NIPS in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Finally, we summarize the application guidelines and discuss the corresponding quality control methods for NIPS. In addition to cffDNA, extracellular vesicle DNA, RNA, protein/peptide, and fetal cells can also be detected as biomarkers of NIPS. With the development of prenatal testing, NIPS has become increasingly important. Notably, NIPS is a screening test instead of a diagnostic test. The testing methods and procedures used in the NIPS process require standardization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The right subclavian artery normally arises as the first vessel from the brachiocephalic trunk. An aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA) arises directly from the aortic arch and crosses behind the trachea towards the right arm. This variant occurs in approximately 1–2% of the population; however, the frequency increases in individuals with chromosomal abnormalities such as trisomy 21 and 22q11.2 microdeletion. Prenatal identification of ARSA therefore has a role in screening for such conditions. Methods: Databases were searched for studies reporting the prenatal ultrasound evaluation of ARSA and its frequency in normal fetuses and in those with chromosomal abnormalities. Results: A total of 23 studies were evaluated. Feasibility for the ultrasound evaluation of ARSA was 85–95%. The sonographic detection of ARSA is best in the three-vessel trachea view; however, sagittal and coronal imaging of the aortic arch may be useful. ARSA in isolation was not found to be associated with chromosomal abnormalities. The prevalence of ARSA in chromosomally abnormal fetuses was up to 24-fold higher than in normal fetuses, but the majority of chromosomally abnormal fetuses with ARSA had additional abnormal ultrasound findings, particularly cardiac abnormalities. Conclusions: The prenatal detection of ARSA is a clinically useful prenatal marker for chromosomal abnormalities. In isolation, it is unlikely to be associated with pathogenic genetic variants. The ultrasound diagnosis of ARSA should prompt meticulous assessment of associated abnormalities. Invasive diagnostic testing should be offered to patients with non-isolated ARSA or in the presence of non-reassuring screening results or other risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Tetrasomy 9p and trisomy 9p are rare chromosomal aberrations. The phenotypes of tetrasomy 9p and trisomy 9p are variable. Most cases are diagnosed in the postnatal period. The study aims to analyze the prenatal phenotype of tetrasomy 9p and trisomy 9p in terms of ultrasound and screening tests. Methods: A set of 1573 prenatal tests performed from 2016 to 2021 was reviewed to identify all cases with trisomy 9p and tetrasomy 9p. In four cases with 9p gain, non-invasive and invasive test results were analyzed. Results: Four cases with the 9p gain were diagnosed in the prenatal period: two cases with tetrasomy 9p and two cases with trisomy 9p. Nasal bone hypoplasia and ventriculomegaly are common features of 9p gain. In two out of four cases with the 9p gain, an increased risk of trisomy 21 was found in the combined firsttrimester screening test. Conclusion: Trisomy 9p and tetrasomy 9p are characterized by a variable phenotype in the prenatal period, manifesting in genetically abnormal fetuses. The tetrasomy 9p and trisomy 9p may suggest trisomy 21 in the first trimester. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Aberrant right subclavian artery, which is detected in 1-1.5% of the population, is considered an anatomical variant. Aberrant right subclavian artery is usually not symptomatic, but can sometimes lead to dysphagia due to esophageal compression. On the other hand, it has been found that it has accompanied some fetal anomalies in the last two decades. Although aberrant right subclavian artery is seen at a rate of 1-1.5% in normal chromosomal fetuses, it is seen at a rate of 19-36%, especially in fetuses with Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Our study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Ankara University Faculty of Medicine between the dates of January 2017-January 2020. Pregnant women have had their detailed ultrasonography at our clinic and who were between 18th-24th gestational weeks were included. Amniocentesis was performed on the patients who have accepted, and genetic results were followed up. The patients who did not accept were followed up until after birth, and genetic testing was requested for babies suggestive of anomaly. RESULTS: Our study included 6205 patients who underwent detailed ultrasonography in our clinic between January 2017 and June 2020. Our detailed ultrasonography application week was between 16- 24 weeks. During this period, aberrant right subclavian artery was detected in 47 of our patients. The detection rate of ARSA in the normal population in our study was 0.7% (46/6205). While aberrant right subclavian artery was the only ultrasonographic finding in 28 patients, extra anomalies were observed in 18 patients. Down syndrome was detected in four fetuses, CONCLUSION: We did not find any chromosomal anomalies in any of the patients with isolated aberrant right subclavian artery. Therefore, we do not recommend invasive intervention in patients with isolated aberrant right subclavian artery. On the other hand, our study confirmed that aberrant right subclavian artery screening should be a part of a detailed fetal ultrasonographic examination. Further studies with larger patient groups are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed to assess the utility of ultrasound screening for pregnancies with positive noninvasive prenatal testing results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of positive noninvasive prenatal testing results and first‐trimester ultrasound screening at our department between 2013 and 2019. Invasive genetic testing was performed if the patient had positive noninvasive prenatal testing results. Fetal ultrasound and cytogenetic data were collected. Noninvasive prenatal testing was performed in the women for advanced maternal age, nuchal translucency thickness, or history of abnormality in the previous child or relative. Results: Forty‐one pregnant women had positive noninvasive prenatal testing results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Twenty‐three women had positive results for trisomy 21, 13 had positive results for trisomy 18, and 5 had positive results for trisomy 13 at 11 to 14 weeks of gestation. The positive predictive value of noninvasive prenatal testing was 100% for trisomy 21, 84.6% for trisomy 18, and 100% for trisomy 13. The positive predictive value of positive noninvasive prenatal testing results and fetal morphological abnormalities was 100% for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Conclusion: Combining an ultrasound examination with noninvasive prenatal testing resulted in a higher positive predictive value for trisomy 18. Normal ultrasound examination results can help alleviate stress caused by false‐positive noninvasive prenatal testing results. In contrast, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value for trisomy 21 were not altered by adding an ultrasound examination to noninvasive prenatal testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic value of the BACs-on-Beads (BoBs) assay for the rapid diagnosis of common aneuploidies and microdeletions.Methods: A total of 4961 pregnant women admitted to the Wuxi Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University from January 2017 to March 2019 were enrolled. BoBs assay and conventional karyotyping were applied to detect amniotic fluid samples with various indications for prenatal diagnosis. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and maternal cell contamination (MCC) tests were used for further validation.Results: The overall abnormality detection rates (BoBs associated with karyotyping) were 4.25% (211/4961). The prenatal diagnosis success rate of karyotyping was 99.4% (4933/4961), compared to 100% (4961/4961) using the BoBs assays. The BoBs assay was similar to karyotyping for the detection of trisomy 21 (1.01%, 50/4961), trisomy 18 (0.40%, 20/4961), trisomy 13 (0.04%, 2/4961), and sex chromosomal aneuploidies (0.15%, 12/4961). The BoBs assay also identified sex chromosomal microduplications/microdeletions (1.73%, 86/4961), 22q11.2 microdeletions/microduplications (0.1%, 5/4961), and Cri du Chat syndrome (0.02%, 1/4961) which were missed by karyotyping. The sensitivity for the detection of numerical chromosomal abnormalities of the BoBs assay and karyotyping analysis was 100% (95/95, 95% CI: 1.0-1.0) and 98.9% (94/95, 95% CI: 0.969-1.010), respectively. The sensitivity of detecting structural chromosomal abnormalities in the BoBs assay was significantly higher than those of karyotyping (79.3%, 92/116, 95% CI: 0.718-0.868) versus 21.6% (25/116, 95% CI: 0.140-0.291) (p < .01).Conclusions: The BoBs assay is a reliable and rapid test for the detection of common aneuploidies and nine microdeletion syndromes with high sensitivity and accuracy in prenatal diagnosis. The assay can compensate for the limitations of karyotyping analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the impact of implementing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing on gestational age (GA) at termination of pregnancy in a French perinatal network.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study. All women having undergone a termination of pregnancy between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2017 were included. We compared the periods before and after the introduction of second-line cfDNA testing, which started on 1 January 2015. Throughout the study period, the invasive procedures were foetal karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis. The primary study outcome was GA at termination. The secondary outcomes were GA at termination for trisomy 21 and the frequency and GA at the time of invasive procedures.Results: During the 6-year study period, 840 women underwent termination. The median GA at termination before and after the implementation of cfDNA testing was 19.4 and 19.0 weeks, respectively (p = 0.38). Although the frequency of termination for trisomy 21 increased significantly from 23% to 32% (p < 0.01), the median GA at termination did not change significantly (p = 0.80). The implementation of cfDNA testing was associated with a decrease in the frequency of invasive procedures in general and chorionic villus sampling in particular (p = 0.04).Conclusion: The introduction of cfDNA testing does not increase the GA at termination for trisomy21. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soft markers were originally introduced to prenatal ultrasonography to improve the detection of trisomy 21 over that achievable with age-based and serum screening strategies. As prenatal genetic screening strategies have greatly evolved in the last 2 decades, the relative importance of soft markers has shifted. The purpose of this document is to discuss the recommended evaluation and management of isolated soft markers in the context of current maternal serum screening and cell-free DNA screening options. In this document, "isolated" is used to describe a soft marker that has been identified in the absence of any fetal structural anomaly, growth restriction, or additional soft marker following a detailed obstetrical ultrasound examination. In this document, "serum screening methods" refers to all maternal screening strategies, including first-trimester screen, integrated screen, sequential screen, contingent screen, or quad screen. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends the following approach to the evaluation and management of isolated soft markers: (1) we do not recommend diagnostic testing for aneuploidy solely for the evaluation of an isolated soft marker following a negative serum or cell-free DNA screening result (GRADE 1B); (2) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1B); (3) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated thickened nuchal fold or isolated absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (4) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 18 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1C); (5) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and an isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, we recommend no further evaluation as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for fetal echocardiography, follow-up ultrasound imaging, or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1B); (6) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated fetal echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (7) for pregnant people with negative serum screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and discussion of options for no further aneuploidy evaluation, noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA, or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (8) for pregnant people with negative cell-free DNA screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (9) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation, as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for follow-up ultrasound imaging or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1C); (10) for fetuses with isolated echogenic bowel, we recommend an evaluation for cystic fibrosis and fetal cytomegalovirus infection and a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C); (11) for fetuses with an isolated single umbilical artery, we recommend no additional evaluation for aneuploidy, regardless of whether results of previous aneuploidy screening were low risk or testing was declined. We recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination to evaluate growth and consideration of weekly antenatal fetal surveillance beginning at 36 0/7 weeks of gestation (GRADE 1C); (12) for fetuses with isolated urinary tract dilation A1, we recommend an ultrasound examination at ≥32 weeks of gestation to determine if postnatal pediatric urology or nephrology follow-up is needed. For fetuses with urinary tract dilation A2-3, we recommend an individualized follow-up ultrasound assessment with planned postnatal follow-up (GRADE 1C); (13) for fetuses with isolated shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA involves analysis of a sample of maternal blood for DNA fragments of fetal chromosomes from the fetal-placental unit to detect common chromosome abnormalities, trisomy 21, trisomy 13, trisomy 18, and sex chromosomes as early as 10 weeks' gestation when the fetal fraction is usually more than 4%. It is the most sensitive and specific prenatal screening option for these conditions. Because it is a screening test, false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Positive screen results necessitate further evaluation for diagnosis to confirm a medical condition, before critical decisions regarding pregnancy are made. Professional organizations provide clinical recommendations to providers regarding prescreen and postscreen counseling and management of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cell-free DNA noninvasive prenatal screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 has been rapidly adopted into clinical practice. However, previous studies are limited by a lack of follow-up genetic testing to confirm the outcomes and accurately assess test performance, particularly in women at a low risk for aneuploidy.Objective: To measure and compare the performance of cell-free DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 between women at a low and high risk for aneuploidy in a large, prospective cohort with genetic confirmation of results STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter prospective observational study at 21 centers in 6 countries. Women who had single-nucleotide-polymorphism-based cell-free DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 were enrolled. Genetic confirmation was obtained from prenatal or newborn DNA samples. The test performance and test failure (no-call) rates were assessed for the cohort, and women with low and high previous risks for aneuploidy were compared. An updated cell-free DNA algorithm blinded to the pregnancy outcome was also assessed.Results: A total of 20,194 women were enrolled at a median gestational age of 12.6 weeks (interquartile range, 11.6-13.9). The genetic outcomes were confirmed in 17,851 cases (88.4%): 13,043 (73.1%) low-risk and 4808 (26.9%) high-risk cases for aneuploidy. Overall, 133 trisomies were diagnosed (100 trisomy 21; 18 trisomy 18; 15 trisomy 13). The cell-free DNA screen positive rate was lower in the low-risk vs the high-risk group (0.27% vs 2.2%; P<.0001). The sensitivity and specificity were similar between the groups. The positive predictive value for the low- and high-risk groups was 85.7% vs 97.5%; P=.058 for trisomy 21; 50.0% vs 81.3%; P=.283 for trisomy 18; and 62.5% vs 83.3; P=.58 for trisomy 13, respectively. Overall, 602 (3.4%) patients had no-call result after the first draw and 287 (1.61%) after including cases with a second draw. The trisomy rate was higher in the 287 cases with no-call results than patients with a result on a first draw (2.8% vs 0.7%; P=.001). The updated algorithm showed similar sensitivity and specificity to the study algorithm with a lower no-call rate.Conclusion: In women at a low risk for aneuploidy, single-nucleotide-polymorphism-based cell-free DNA has high sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value of 85.7% for trisomy 21 and 74.3% for the 3 common trisomies. Patients who receive a no-call result are at an increased risk of aneuploidy and require additional investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]