1. On the Importance of Clinical Follow-up in the Establishment of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for Laboratory Developed Tests
- Author
-
Travis Reeder, Allan T. Bombard, Nicole Teed, Brendan Tarrier, Jay Stoerker, and Lawrence Clos
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Third party ,Obstetrics ,Concordance ,Non invasive ,Aneuploidy ,Gold standard (test) ,Biology ,medicine.disease ,Bioinformatics ,Test (assessment) ,medicine ,Trisomy ,Genetic testing - Abstract
Non-invasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) is an advance in the detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies that analyzes cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the blood of a pregnant woman. NIPT has quickly spread across the globe after introduction into clinical practice earlier in this decade. Virtually all professional societies currently recommend that NIPT be used as a screening test rather than a diagnostic method. Due to the extraordinarily high specificity and sensitivity, it is clearly an attractive alternative to conventional serum biochemical screening tests-the current standard of care. We performed a clinical validation study of our Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) assessing equivalency to the verifi™ test by Illumina, Inc. The method uses next generation sequencing (NGS), and features interpretation based on the calculation of normalized chromosomal values (NCV). In our assay, samples from 3334 consecutive patients which had been tested with Illumina’s verifi test, were blinded by an independent third party and retested by the method developed for the Progenity LDT to be offered in our commercial laboratory. As an additional level of validation, we sought and achieved follow up contact on 1681 of the original Illumina cases, to further independently confirm our results and theirs. In the analysis of equivalence between the two tests, 111 trisomy 21 samples, 43 trisomy 18 samples and 21 trisomy 13 samples were identified by both tests, indicating an equivalency of >99.9%. Although the results between the verifi “gold standard” test and our LDT proved identical (i.e., 100% concordance), the verifi test is not promoted by Illumina as having a 100% sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, certain discrepancies can only be appreciated by clinical follow up. In the NCV analyses, categories are created for “affected” or “suspected trisomy” based on the magnitude of the NCV value. Our findings suggest that the very few discrepancies were between the “aneuploidy suspected” categories of the verify reference standard and our LDT’s confirmed “not affected” or “affected” categories. Our conclusion is that NIPT LDTs must be validated by a process including clinical follow-up, not just equivalency to a reference testing method.
- Published
- 2017