Increasing maternal age is not a significant cause of false‐positive results for monosomy X in non‐invasive prenatal testing

Placental, maternal, fetal, and technical origins of false-positive cell-free DNA screening results

The introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing has resulted in substantial reductions to previously accepted false-positive rates of prenatal screening. Despite this, the possibility of false-positive results remains a challenging consideration in clinical practice, particularly considering the increasing uptake of genome-wide noninvasive prenatal testing, and the subsequent increased proportion of high-risk results attributable to various biological events besides fetal aneuploidy. Confined placental mosaicism, whereby chromosome anomalies exclusively affect the placenta, is perhaps the most widely accepted cause of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing. There remains, however, a substantial degree of ambiguity in the literature pertaining to the clinical ramifications of confined placental mosaicism and its potential association with placental insufficiency, and consequentially adverse pregnancy outcomes including fetal growth restriction. Other causes of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing include vanishing twin syndrome, in which the cell-free DNA from a demised aneuploidy-affected twin triggers a high-risk result, technical failures, and maternal origins of abnormal cell-free DNA such as uterine fibroids or unrecognized mosaicisms. Most concerningly, maternal malignancies are also a documented cause of false-positive screening results. In this review, we compile what is currently known about the various causes of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing.

Late first-trimester ultrasound findings can alter management after high-risk NIPT result

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of detailed late first-trimester ultrasound (LFTU) on the positive predictive value (PPV) of a high-risk non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) result for various chromosomal abnormalities.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all cases undergoing invasive prenatal testing from three tertiary providers of obstetric ultrasound over 4 years, each using NIPT as a first-line screening test. Data were collected from pre-NIPT ultrasound, NIPT, LFTU, placental serology and later ultrasound examinations. Prenatal testing for chromosomal abnormalities was performed by microarray, initially using array comparative genomic hybridization and then single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array for the last 2 years. Uniparental disomy testing was performed by SNP array during all 4 years. The majority of NIPT tests were analyzed using the Illumina platform, initially confined to the assessment of the common autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies and rare autosomal trisomies (RAT), then extending to genome-wide analysis for the last 2 years.

RESULTS

Amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was performed on 2657 patients, 1352 (51%) of whom had undergone prior NIPT, with 612 (45%) of these returning a high-risk result and meeting the inclusion criteria for the study. LFTU findings significantly affected the PPV of the NIPT result for trisomies 13 (T13), 18 (T18) and 21 (T21), monosomy X (MX) and RAT but not for the other sex chromosomal abnormalities or segmental imbalances (> 7 Mb). Abnormal LFTU increased the PPV close to 100% for T13, T18, T21, MX and RAT. The magnitude of the change in PPV was highest for the most severe chromosomal abnormalities. When LFTU was normal, the incidence of confined placental mosaicism (CPM) was highest in those with a high-risk NIPT result for T13, followed by T18 and T21. After normal LFTU, the PPV for T21, T18, T13 and MX decreased to 68%, 57%, 5% and 25%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LFTU after a high-risk NIPT result can alter the PPV for many chromosomal abnormalities, assisting counseling regarding invasive prenatal testing and pregnancy management. The high PPVs of NIPT for T21 and T18 are not sufficiently modified by normal LFTU findings to alter management. These at-risk patients should be offered CVS for earlier diagnosis, particularly given the low rate of CPM associated with these aneuploidies. Patients with a high-risk NIPT result for T13 and normal LFTU findings often wait for amniocentesis or avoid invasive testing altogether given the low PPV and higher rate of CPM in this context. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Chorionic Villous Testing Versus Amniocentesis After Abnormal Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

In the setting of a normal first-trimester ultrasound, an amniocentesis may be a better option than chorionic villous sampling for invasive diagnostic testing after a cell-free DNA high risk for trisomy 13, given the high rates of confined placental mosaicism. In unaffected fetuses, other evaluations should be considered depending on the cell-free DNA results, including maternal karyotyping for monosomy X, uniparental disomy testing for chromosomes with imprinted genes, serial growth scans for trisomy 16, and a workup for maternal malignancy for multiple aneuploidies or autosomal monosomy.

Position statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis on the use of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of fetal chromosomal conditions in singleton pregnancies

What is already known about this topic?

What does this study add?

The accuracy of prenatal cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities is increasingly used in clinical practice, its diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the performance of cell-free DNA in the detection of sex chromosome abnormalities.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022 for articles relating to cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original articles, randomized control trials, conference abstracts, cohort and case-control studies, and case series with more than 10 cases with diagnostic confirmation were considered for inclusion.

METHODS

Quality assessment of each included publication was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The positive predictive value was calculated as the proportion of true positive cases among those who tested positive and underwent diagnostic testing. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled, and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was produced using bivariate models that included studies that had diagnostic confirmation for high- and low-risk women.

RESULTS

The search identified 7553 results. Of these, 380 proceeded to the full-text screening, of which 94 articles were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1,531,240 women tested. All studies reported a confirmatory genetic test. The pooled positive predictive value was 49.4% (95% confidence interval, 45.8-53.1). The pooled positive predictive value was 32.0% (95% confidence interval, 27.0%-37.3%) for monosomy X, 67.6% (95% confidence interval, 62.5%-72.5%) for XXY, 57.5% (95% confidence interval, 51.7%-63.1%) for XXX, and 70.9% (95% confidence interval, 63.9%-77.1%) for XYY. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities were 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 90.8%-96.3%) and 99.5% (95% confidence interval, 99.0%-99.7%), respectively, with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.934 (95% confidence interval, 0.907-0.989).

CONCLUSION

Although the sensitivity and specificity of cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities are high, the positive predictive value was approximately 50%. The positive predictive value was higher for sex chromosome abnormalities with a supernumerary Y chromosome and lower for monosomy X. Clinicians should inform couples about these findings when offering cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities.

Multicenter clinical experience with non-invasive cell-free DNA screening for monosomy X and related X-chromosome variants

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate how the presence of fetal anomalies and different X chromosome variants influences Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening results for monosomy X.

METHODS

From a multicenter retrospective survey on 673 pregnancies with prenatally suspected or confirmed Turner syndrome, we analyzed the subgroup for which prenatal cfDNA screening and karyotype results were available. A cfDNA screening result was defined as true positive (TP) when confirmatory testing showed 45,X or an X-chromosome variant.

RESULTS

We had cfDNA results, karyotype, and phenotype data for 55 pregnancies. cfDNA results were high risk for monosomy X in 48/55, of which 23 were TP and 25 were false positive (FP). 32/48 high-risk cfDNA cases did not show fetal anomalies. Of these, 7 were TP. All were X-chromosome variants. All 16 fetuses with high-risk cfDNA result and ultrasound anomalies were TP. Of fetuses with abnormalities, those with 45,X more often had fetal hydrops/cystic hygroma, whereas those with "variant" karyotypes had different anomalies.

CONCLUSION

Both, 45,X or X-chromosome variants can be detected after a high-risk cfDNA result for monosomy X. When there are fetal anomalies, the result is more likely a TP. In the absence of fetal anomalies, it is most often an FP or X-chromosome variant.

Diagnostic testing after positive results on cell free DNA screening: CVS or Amnio?

OBJECTIVE

The positive predictive values of cell free DNA (cfDNA) and rates of confined placental mosaicism (CPM), imprinting and other factors vary by chromosome.

METHODS

We sought to review the literature for each of these features for each chromosome and provide recommendations on chorionic villus sampling (CVS) versus amniocentesis after an abnormal cfDNA result.

RESULTS

For chromosomes with high rates of CPM (trisomy 13, monosomy X and rare autosomal trisomies [RATs]), an amniocentesis should be considered if the first trimester ultrasound is normal. For monosomy X on cfDNA with an unaffected fetus, maternal karyotyping should be considered after normal fetal diagnostic testing. In cfDNA cases with a trisomy involving a chromosome with imprinted genes (6, 7, 11, 14, 15 and 20), CVS should be considered, followed by amniocentesis if abnormal. If the fetus is unaffected, methylation studies should be considered given the risk of uniparental disomy. A third trimester growth ultrasound should be considered for patients with a positive cfDNA screen for a RAT and an unaffected fetus, especially in the case of trisomy 16. For patients with multiple aneuploidy results on cfDNA, a work-up for maternal malignancy should be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should consider rates of CPM, imprinting, ultrasound findings and maternal factors when considering whether to recommend amniocentesis or CVS after an abnormal cfDNA result.

Chances and Challenges of New Genetic Screening Technologies (NIPT) in Prenatal Medicine from a Clinical Perspective: A Narrative Review

In 1959, 63 years after the death of John Langdon Down, Jérôme Lejeune discovered trisomy 21 as the genetic reason for Down syndrome. Screening for Down syndrome has been applied since the 1960s by using maternal age as the risk parameter. Since then, several advances have been made. First trimester screening, combining maternal age, maternal serum parameters and ultrasound findings, emerged in the 1990s with a detection rate (DR) of around 90-95% and a false positive rate (FPR) of around 5%, also looking for trisomy 13 and 18. With the development of high-resolution ultrasound, around 50% of fetal anomalies are now detected in the first trimester. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomy 21, 13 and 18 is a highly efficient screening method and has been applied as a first-line or a contingent screening approach all over the world since 2012, in some countries without a systematic screening program. Concomitant with the rise in technology, the possibility of screening for other genetic conditions by analysis of cfDNA, such as sex chromosome anomalies (SCAs), rare autosomal anomalies (RATs) and microdeletions and duplications, is offered by different providers to an often not preselected population of pregnant women. Most of the research in the field is done by commercial providers, and some of the tests are on the market without validated data on test performance. This raises difficulties in the counseling process and makes it nearly impossible to obtain informed consent. In parallel with the advent of new screening technologies, an expansion of diagnostic methods has begun to be applied after invasive procedures. The karyotype has been the gold standard for decades. Chromosomal microarrays (CMAs) able to detect deletions and duplications on a submicroscopic level have replaced the conventional karyotyping in many countries. Sequencing methods such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) tremendously amplify the diagnostic yield in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies.