Inclusion of sex chromosomes in noninvasive prenatal testing in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA: A survey study

Combined first-trimester screening and invasive diagnostics for atypical chromosomal aberrations: Danish nationwide study of prenatal profiles and detection compared with NIPT

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to examine the prenatal profiles of pregnancies affected by an atypical chromosomal aberration, focusing on pathogenic copy-number variants (pCNVs). We also wanted to quantify the performance of combined first-trimester screening (cFTS) and a second-trimester anomaly scan in detecting these aberrations. Finally, we aimed to estimate the consequences of a policy of using non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) rather than invasive testing with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) to manage pregnancies identified as high risk by cFTS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of the Danish Fetal Medicine Database of all pregnant women who underwent cFTS and a risk assessment for trisomy 21 between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018. Chromosomal aberrations diagnosed prenatally, postnatally or from fetal tissue following pregnancy loss or termination of pregnancy were identified. Chromosomal aberrations were grouped into one of six categories: triploidy; common trisomy (13, 18 or 21); monosomy X; other sex-chromosome aberration (SCA); pCNV; and rare autosomal trisomy (RAT) or mosaicism. The prevalence of each aberration category was stratified by the individual cFTS markers and trisomy 21 risk estimate, and the size of each pCNV diagnosed by CMA was calculated.

RESULTS

We retrieved data on 565 708 pregnancies, of which 3982 (0.70%) were diagnosed with a fetal chromosomal aberration. cFTS identified 87% of the common trisomies, but it also performed well in identifying triploidies (86%), monosomy X (92%), atypical SCAs (58%) and RATs or mosaicisms (70%). pCNVs comprised 27% (n = 1091) of the chromosomal aberrations diagnosed overall, and the prevalence increased during the study period, as prenatal CMA was increasingly being performed. In pregnancies with a maternal age < 30 years, nuchal translucency (NT) thickness ≤ 95th centile, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) ≥ 1 multiple of the median, or trisomy 21 risk of ≤ 1 in 1000, the prevalence of pCNVs exceeded significantly the prevalence of trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Pregnancies affected by a pCNV had significantly increased NT and decreased levels of the maternal biomarkers PAPP-A and β-human chorionic gonadotropin compared with unaffected pregnancies. However, only 23% of these pregnancies screened positive on cFTS and 51% of pCNVs were not detected until after birth. Among high-risk pregnancies, pCNVs comprised 14% of diagnosed aberrations, and when other atypical aberrations were considered, conventional NIPT (screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and monosomy X) would miss 27% of all pathogenic aberrations diagnosed from invasive testing following a high-risk cFTS result. Thus, 1 in 26 pregnancies at high risk following cFTS would be affected by a chromosomal aberration despite a normal result from conventional NIPT. In a contingent screening model using NIPT for the 'intermediate'-risk group (trisomy 21 risk of 1 in 100-299), 50% of the aberrations would be missed. In our cohort, 79% of the pCNVs diagnosed were < 5Mb and therefore not detectable using current forms of 'genome-wide' NIPT.

CONCLUSIONS

As a by-product of screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, most triploidies and the majority of atypical SCAs, RATs and mosaicisms are detected before birth. However, only 23% of pCNVs are associated with a high-risk result according to cFTS and only half are diagnosed before birth. Replacing invasive testing with NIPT for high-risk pregnancies would substantially decrease the first-trimester detection of pathogenic chromosomal anomalies. © 2024 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan

The Japanese government and medical professionals have negative attitudes toward the provision of prenatal testing and related information due to social concern regarding discrimination against persons with disabilities. However, with the rapid increase in the number of non-invasive prenatal tests, particularly at non-certificated medical facilities, in response to the growing demand from pregnant women, the Japanese government and medical professional associations have enacted radical changes marking an active commitment to the provision of information on these services. While a major justification for these policy changes is to ensure respect for reproductive autonomy and women's self-determination, they may reinforce the concern regarding discrimination. This article investigated the argument that these new policies may reinforce discrimination and examined three objections to this argument. The results revealed that the recent policy changes, particularly for specific fetal traits, may imply a negative belief about people living with the same traits. Consequently, fundamental institutional changes are necessary.

Impact of the new government-involved noninvasive prenatal testing certification system on the awareness of pregnant women about noninvasive prenatal testing in Japan

AIM

In Japan, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been performed by facilities accredited by the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology since 2013. However, since 2016, with the implementation of NIPT, which can only be performed by blood sampling, non-obstetricians have been involved in prenatal testing. Therefore, in July 2022, a new government-involved NIPT certification system based on Health Sciences Council guidelines was introduced to ensure access to prenatal testing information for pregnant women.

METHODS

This survey was conducted in February 2023 and was the first survey after the certification system implementation. We conducted a web-based survey of 1227 pregnant women and nursing mothers who underwent NIPT after July 2022 to evaluate their experiences.

RESULTS

Respondents were categorized by certification status as certified (C: 56%), non-certified (non-C: 23%), or uncertain (Q: 20%). The C group with a higher mean age at examination (35.0 ± 4.5 years) paid lower examination fees, received longer pre- and post-examination explanations, and underwent more weekday examinations (80%) than the other groups. Most respondents, 67%, 48%, and 53% in the C, non-C, and Q groups, respectively (p < 0.0001), stated that "NIPT needs to be regulated by the government or academic societies." The non-C group was more likely to say, "Insufficient post-test explanations at the laboratory made me more anxious," than the other groups when the testing results were non-negative (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite government regulation, some pregnant women choose convenience over certified facilities, risking inadequate care. The government should ensure that NIPT is a safe option for all pregnant women.

Clinical Applications of Fetal Cell-Free DNA: State of the Science

Advances in technology have correlated with expanding prenatal genetic testing options for pregnant people. Leading medical organizations recommend cell-free DNA as the most sensitive screening test for trisomies 13, 18, and 21, as well as for fetal sex chromosome aneuploidies. The commercially available testing options go beyond these recommended tests, and prenatal care professionals should be familiar with the tests that their patients may choose despite being beyond the scope of current medical recommendations. This article explains updates in cell-free DNA technology and clinical considerations for prenatal care professionals, recognizing that this is a rapidly changing field of science and health care.

Use of cell-free non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies affected by placental mosaicism

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cell-free non-invasive prenatal testing (cfNIPT) in pregnancies affected by mosaicism.

METHOD

We assessed paired cfNIPT and chorionic villus sample (CVS) results from the same pregnancies in a case series of mosaicism detected in Central and North Denmark Regions from April 2014 to September 2018. Indications for the clinically obtained CVS, pregnancy markers and outcome were retrieved from The Danish Fetal Medicine Database.

RESULTS

Mosaicisms in CVS involved common aneuploidy, n = 14; sex chromosomal aneuploidies, n = 14; rare autosomal trisomies (RATs), n = 16 and copy number variants (CNVs) >5Mb, n = 9. Overall, 24/53 (45.3%; CI 95%: 31.8%-59.4%) of cases with mosaicism were detected by cfNIPT; highest for RATs (56%) and lowest for CNVs (22%). CfNIPT more commonly detected high-level than low-level mosaic cases (p = 0.000). CfNIPT detected 7/16 (43.8%; CI 95%: 21%-69%) clinically significant mosaic cases, either true fetal mosaicism or confined placental mosaicisms with adverse pregnancy outcome. There was a trend toward a higher risk for adverse outcome in pregnancies where mosaicism was detected by cfNIPT compared to pregnancies where mosaicism was not detected by cfNIPT (p = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

CfNIPT has a low detection rate of mosaicism, including pregnancies with clinically significant mosaicism. However, abnormal cfNIPT results may be a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Should non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) be used for fetal sex determination? Perspectives and experiences of healthcare professionals

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can not only accurately detect early in pregnancy the presence of chromosomal abnormalities but also fetal sex. However, whether fetal sex should be reported after performing NIPT is ethically contentious. In Belgium, NIPT is practically fully reimbursed and offered to all pregnant women as a first-tier screening. In practice, fetal sex is reported upon request of the expectant parents; however, this is not stipulated in guidelines. As more countries are offering NIPT and looking to implement it in public healthcare, challenges and insights of healthcare professionals working in Belgium can be of value for others. We assessed healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on sex determination and reporting following NIPT in Belgium by conducting a semi-structured interview study. We interviewed 30 professionals involved in prenatal screening. While overall healthcare professionals did not consider reporting fetal sex to be an issue if the expectant parents want to know, some consider the reporting of a non-medical trait like fetal sex problematic when it is reimbursed or if it could lead to sex-selective termination of pregnancy. Moreover, the strong desire of expectant parents to know fetal sex risks compromising informed decision-making about NIPT. In this way, fetal sex may distract from the primary aim of NIPT as a test for medical conditions. Improving pre-test counseling both in terms of quality and availability may help overcome some of these issues.

Unique Challenges of NIPT for Sex Chromosome Aneuploidy

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the sex chromosome aneuploidies (45,X, 47,XXY, 47,XXX, and 47,XYY) differs significantly from that for the autosomal aneuploidies (trisomy 13, 18, and 21). As a group, sex chromosome aneuploidies occur more commonly (1/400) than any one isolated autosomal aneuploidy, the phenotypic variation is greater, the role of mosaicism more challenging, and the positive predictive value of a high-risk NIPT result is substantially lower. These considerations should be identified during pretest counseling, the inclusion of sex chromosome testing offered separately, and the differences from autosomal aneuploidy NIPT clearly delineated.

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?