Search

Abstract Background Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using massively parallel sequencing of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is increasingly being used to predict fetal chromosomal abnormalities. However, concerns over erroneous predictions which occur while performing NIPT still exist in pregnant women at high risk for fetal aneuploidy. We performed the largest-scale clinical NIPT study in Korea to date to assess the risk of false negatives and false positives using next-generation sequencing. Methods A total of 447 pregnant women at high risk for fetal aneuploidy were enrolled at 12 hospitals in Korea. They underwent definitive diagnoses by full karyotyping by blind analysis and received aneuploidy screening at 11–22 weeks of gestation. Three steps were employed for cfDNA analyses. First, cfDNA was sequenced. Second, the effect of GC bias was corrected using normalization of samples as well as LOESS and linear regressions. Finally, statistical analysis was performed after selecting a set of reference samples optimally adapted to a test sample from the whole reference samples. We evaluated our approach by performing cfDNA testing to assess the risk of trisomies 13, 18, and 21 using the sets of extracted reference samples. Results The adaptive selection algorithm presented here was used to choose a more optimized reference sample, which was evaluated by the coefficient of variation (CV), demonstrated a lower CV and higher sensitivity than standard approaches. Our adaptive approach also showed that fetal aneuploidies could be detected correctly by clearly splitting the z scores obtained for positive and negative samples. Conclusions We show that our adaptive reference selection algorithm for optimizing trisomy detection showed improved reliability and will further support practitioners in reducing both false negative and positive results.

Background: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to detect fetal aneuploidy using next-generation sequencing on ion semiconductor platforms has become common. There are several sequencers that can generate sufficient DNA reads for NIPT. However, the approval criteria vary among platforms and countries. This can delay the introduction of such devices and systems to clinics. A comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of two different platforms using the same sequencing chemistry could be useful in NIPT for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. This would improve healthcare authorities' confidence in decision-making on sequencing-based tests. Methods: One hundred and one pregnant women who were predicted at high risk of fetal defects using conventional prenatal screening tests, and who underwent definitive diagnosis by full karyotyping, were enrolled from three hospitals in Korea. Most of the pregnant women (69.79 %) received NIPT during weeks 11-13 of gestation and 30.21 % during weeks 14-18. We used Ion Torrent PGM and Proton semi-conductor-based sequencers with 0.3× sequencing coverage depth. The average total reads of 101 samples were approximately 4.5 and 7.6 M for PGM and Proton, respectively. A Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) algorithm was used for the alignment, and a z-score was used to decide fetal trisomy 21. Interactive dot diagrams from the sequencing data showed minimal z-score values of 2.07 and 2.10 to discriminate negative versus positive cases of fetal trisomy 21 for the two different sequencing systems. Results: Our z-score-based discrimination method resulted in 100 % positive and negative prediction values for both ion semiconductor PGM and Proton sequencers, regardless of their sequencing chip and chemistry differences. Both platforms performed well at an early stage (11-13 weeks of gestation) compared with previous studies. Conclusions: These results suggested that, using two different sequencers, NIPT to detect fetal trisomy 21 in early pregnancy is accurate and platform-independent. The data suggested that the amount of sequencing and the application of common, simple, and robust statistical analyses are more important than sequencing chemistry and platform types. This result has practical implications in countries where PGM is approved for NIPT but the Proton system is not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]