Application of chromosome microarray analysis and karyotyping in diagnostic assessment of abnormal Down syndrome screening results

Background

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common congenital cause of intellectual disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. This study aims to explore the application value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis for pregnant women with abnormal DS screening results.

Methods

The study recruited 1452 pregnant women with abnormal DS screening results including 493 with an enlarged nuchal translucency thickness (NT ≥ 2.5 mm) and 959 with an abnormal second-trimester maternal serum biomarker screening results. They underwent amniocentesis to obtain amniotic fluid for CMA and karyotyping.

Results

CMA identified 74/1452 abnormal results, which was more efficient than karyotyping (51/1452, P < 0.05.) CMA is equivalent to traditional karyotyping for identifying aneuploidies. Compared to karyotyping CMA identified 1.90% more copy number variants (CNVs) ranging from 159Kb to 6496Kb. However, 34.4% of them were recurrent pathogenic CNVs associated with risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. CMA identified 13 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) results and 1 maternal uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 7. Karyotyping identified 3 mosaic sex chromosome aneuploidy and 4 balanced translocation which could not be identified by CMA. In enlarged NT group, karyotyping identified 80.9% abnormal results while in serum screening group karyotyping identified 35.7%. However, the incidence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) CNVs was nearly the same in both groups. That was because aneuploidies and gross duplication/deletion were previously screened out by NT scan.

Conclusions

CMA and karyotyping have both advantages and disadvantages in prenatal diagnosis of pregnant women with abnormal DS screening results. However, there was not enough evidence to support routine CMA in pregnant women with abnormal DS screening results.

Prenatal Screening Markers for Down Syndrome: Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive and Negative Expected Value Method

Background

Genetic screening for chromosomopathy is performed in the first trimester of pregnancy by determining fetal nuchal translucency (NT), and the pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free human chorionic gonadotropin (free-beta HCG) biomarkers in maternal serum.

Methods

We tested the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative expected values of each marker with the aim of setting a model for prenatal screening readings. Statistical data treatment has been performed on a sample of 340 pregnant women with positive results of prenatal screening.

Results

Sensitivity of PAPP-A was 0.6250 (probability 62.50%), free beta HCG 0.5893 (58.93%), NT 0.1785 (17.85%). Specificity of PAPP-A was 0.5106 (probability 51.06%), free beta HCG 0.5246 (52.46%), NT 0.9718 (97.18%). Positive expected value of PAPP-A was 0.2011 (probability 20.11%), free beta HCG 0.1964 (19.64%), NT 0.556 (55.56%). Negative expected value of PAPP-A was 0.8735 (probability 87.35%), free beta HCG 0.8662 (86.62%), NT 0.8571 (85.71%). The NT marker has a significantly higher specificity, which means that its normal value will significantly reduce the final risk of trisomy 21. The sensitivity of NT is much lower than that of biochemical markers, which means that a pathological value of NT does not have a significant influence on the final risk, i.e. the significantly higher sensitivity of biochemical markers will reduce the final risk of trisomy 21.

Conclusions

The analyses stress the importance of using a software which has the possibility to separate the level of a biochemical risk by correlating PAPP-A and free beta HCG and, by adding the NT marker, calculate the level of a final risk of Down syndrome.

Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) has long been used to prenatally diagnose Down syndrome (DS), but it is associated with a small risk of miscarriage. Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a highly sensitive screening test using cell-free DNA in maternal blood for detection of DS without the risk of miscarriage, but it confers a small risk of false-positive and false-negative results. The implementation of these procedures into clinical practice requires an understanding of stakeholder preferences.

METHODS

A total of 69 health professionals (HPs) and 301 women took part in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which preferences for four prenatal test attributes - accuracy, time of results, risk of miscarriage and amount of information provided - were assessed. Conditional logit regression was used to analyse the data. Data on demographics and ranked preferences for test attributes was collected, and a direct choice question regarding NIPT, IPD or neither test was posed to participants.

RESULTS

The women showed a preference for test safety, whereas HPs prioritised test accuracy above all other attributes. When offered a direct choice of NIPT, IPD or neither test, women aged 35 years and older, those with previous miscarriage or who knew a child with DS were more likely to choose NIPT. Chinese women preferred NIPT, whereas Indian women preferred IPD.

CONCLUSION

Our data highlights the need for patient-specific counselling, taking into account previous experiences and cultural factors. Since women and HPs prioritise different test attributes, it is essential that HPs recognise these differences in order to provide non-biased counselling.