cfDNA screening performance: accounting for and reducing test failures

Association of fetal fraction and cell-free fetal DNA with adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, which can be caused by multiple factors, present a significant threat to the health of mothers and their babies. Cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) from placental trophoblast cells might be able to reflect placental and fetal status. Previous studies have yielded controversial results regarding the association of FF or cffDNA with various adverse pregnancy outcomes. A previous study has attempted to systematically assess the association between low fetal fraction (FF) and adverse pregnancy outcomes, but it failed to perform quantitative analyses due to the few studies included. In the present study, we attempted to quantitatively assess the association of FF (or cffDNA) with adverse pregnancy outcomes and further analyze the causes of heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association of high/low FF or cffDNA with adverse pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 1, 1990, to June 15, 2022 in this meta-analysis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies on the relationships of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with FF or cell free DNA were included. Non-English literature was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about pregnancy outcomes and cell free DNA were extracted and meta-analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed by different outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 11 studies included involving 8280 participants. No significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 27%, 25%), and a fixed-effect model was used for weighted quantitative analysis. The results revealed that the FF or cffDNA during pregnancy was significantly associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women (OR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.24, 1.99], P = 0.233). The overall incidence of the maternal adverse outcomes was 8% (95% CI: 5-13). Subgroup analysis of different outcomes showed an evident association between low FF or cffDNA and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) (OR = 1.76, 95% CI [1.36, 2.27], P = 0.581). There was no evidence that the occurrence of spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) and placental abnormality was associated with FF or cffDNA. No association was observed between low FF or cffDNA during pregnancy and adverse outcomes in fetuses (OR = 1.39, 95% CI [0.99, 1.94], P = 0.242). The overall incidence of adverse outcomes in fetuses was 8% (95% CI: 6-11). There were controversies over the association between high FF or cffDNA and HDP, and sPTB and small for gestational age infant, among different studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women with low FF or cffDNA during the first or second trimester of pregnancy have an overall increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, especially HDP. However, the association between FF and various pregnancy outcomes needs to be further explored by more prospective studies.

Overview of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for the Detection of Fetal Chromosome Abnormalities; Differences in Laboratory Methods and Scope of Testing

Although nearly all noninvasive prenatal testing is currently based on analyzing circulating maternal cell-free DNA, the technical methods usedvary considerably. We review the different methods. Based on validation trials and clinical experience, there are mostly relatively small differences in screening performance for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in singleton pregnancies. Recent reports show low no-call rates for all methods, diminishing its importance when choosing a laboratory. However, method can be an important consideration for twin pregnancies, screening for sex chromosome abnormalities, microdeletion syndromes, triploidy, molar pregnancies, rare autosomal trisomies, and segmental imbalances, and detecting maternal chromosome abnormalities.

Cost of providing cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome in Finland using different strategies

OBJECTIVES

A financial analysis is carried out to assess costs and benefits of providing cell-free DNA screening in Finland, using different strategies.

METHODS

Three cell-free DNA screening strategies are considered: Primary, all women; Secondary, those with positive Combined test; and Contingent, the 10-30% with the highest Combined test risks. Three costs are estimated: additional cost for 10,000 pregnancies compared with the Combined test; 'marginal' cost of avoiding a Down syndrome birth which occurs in a pregnancy that would have been false-negative using the Combined test; and marginal cost of preventing the iatrogenic loss of a non-Down syndrome birth which occurs in a pregnancy that would have been false-positive.

RESULTS

Primary cell-free DNA will require additional funds of €250,000. The marginal cost per Down syndrome birth avoided is considerably less than the lifetime medical and indirect cost; the marginal cost per unaffected iatrogenic fetal loss prevented is higher than one benefit measure but lower than another. If the ultrasound component of the Combined test is retained, as would be in Finland, the additional funds required rise to €992,000. Secondary cell-free DNA is cost-saving as is a Contingent strategy with 10% selected but whilst when 20-30% costs rise they are much less than for the Primary strategy and are cost-beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering the place of cell-free DNA screening it is important to make explicit the additional and marginal costs of different screening strategies and the associated benefits. Under most assumptions the balance is favorable for Contingent screening.

Cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy using the rolling circle method: A step towards non invasive prenatal testing simplification

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of cell-free (cf)DNA screening for aneuploidy using the automated system based on rolling circle replication.

METHODS

A prospective study among women referred for invasive prenatal diagnosis between July 2018 and December 2019. The plasma fraction was extracted within 5 days from blood collection, stored at -20°C and cfDNA measured between January and December 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 805 women were recruited; 778 with singleton pregnancies and 27 twins. There were 48 Down syndrome, 25 Edwards syndrome and 3 Patau syndrome cases. Overall, the no-call rate was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6%-3.9%) which reduced from 4.7% to 1.1% after relocation of the system (p < 0.002) to ensure a constant ambient temperature below 25°C. In singletons the Down syndrome detection rate (DR) was 100% (93%-100%) and false-positive rate (FPR) 0.14% (0.00%-0.79%). The Edwards syndrome DR was 96% (80%-100%) and FPR 0.78% (0.29%-1.7%). One false-positive had a confined placental trisomy 18 and the remaining five a z-score requiring sample repetition; all the false-positives occurred before system relocation (p < 0.005). Patau syndrome DR and FPR were 67% (9.4%-99%) and 0.26% (0.03%-0.95%).

CONCLUSION

The cfDNA rolling circle method yields similar results to other methods provided that room temperature is adequately controlled.

Audit of the first > 7500 noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy tests in a Swiss genetics center

Objectives

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is actually the most accurate method of screening for fetal chromosomal aberration (FCA). We used pregnancy outcome record to evaluate a complete data set of single nucleotide polymorphism-based test results performed by a Swiss genetics center.

Materials and methods

The Panorama^® test assesses the risk of fetal trisomies (21, 18 and 13), gonosomal aneuploidy (GAN), triploidy or vanishing twins (VTT) and five different microdeletions (MD). We evaluated all 7549 test results meeting legal and quality requirements taken in women with nondonor singleton pregnancies between April 2013 and September 2016 classifying them as high or low risk. Follow-up ended after 9 months, data collection 7 months later.

Results

The Panorama^® test provided conclusive results in 96.1% of cases, detecting 153 FCA: T21 n = 76, T18 n = 19, T13 n = 15, GAN n = 19, VTT n = 13 and MD n = 11 (overall prevalence 2.0%). Pregnancy outcome record was available for 68.6% of conclusive laboratory results, including 2.0% high-risk cases. In this cohort the Panorama^® test exhibited 99.90% sensitivity for each trisomy; specificity was 99.90% for T21, 99.98% for T18 and 99.94% for T13. False positive rate was 0.10% for T21, 0.02% for T18 and 0.06% for T13.

Conclusion

SNP-based testing by a Swiss genetics center confirms the expected accuracy of NIPT in FCA detection.

Follow-up in Patients With Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Failures: A Reflection on the Choice of Further Prenatal Diagnosis

Background

Our aim was to provide a theoretical basis for clinicians to conduct genetic counseling and choose further prenatal diagnosis methods for pregnant women who failed non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on pregnant women who had failed NIPS tests.

Results

Among the 123,291 samples, 394 pregnant women did not obtain valid results due to test failures. A total of 378 pregnant women were available for follow-up, while 16 patients were lost to follow-up. Of these 378, 135 pregnant women chose further prenatal diagnosis through amniocentesis, and one case of dysplasia was recalled for postpartum chromosome testing. The incidence rate of congenital chromosomal abnormalities in those who failed the NIPS was 3.97% (15/378), which was higher than that of the chromosomal abnormalities in the common population (1.8%). Among the pregnant women who received prenatal diagnosis, the positive rates of chromosomal abnormalities in the chromosomal microarray analysis/copy number variation sequencing (CMA/CNV-seq) group and in the karyotyping group were 15.28 and 4.76%, respectively.

Conclusion

Prenatal diagnosis should be strongly recommended in posttest genetic counseling for pregnant women with NIPS failures. Further, high-resolution detection methods should be recommended for additional prenatal diagnoses.

Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies

Background

Prenatal screening for chromosome aneuploidies have constantly been evolving, especially with the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening in the most recent years. This study compares the performance, costs and timing of test results of three cfDNA screening implementation strategies: contingent, reflex and primary.

Methods

We modelled enhanced first trimester screening (eFTS) as the first-tier test in contingent or reflex strategies. cfDNA test was performed contingent on or reflex from eFTS results. A comparison was made between cfDNA screening using sequencing technology and Rolling Circle Amplification (RCA)/imaging solution. All model assumptions were based on results from previous publications or information from the Ontario prenatal screening population.

Results

At an eFTS risk cut-off of ≥1/1000, contingent and reflex cfDNA screening have the same detection rate (DR) (94%) for trisomy 21. Reflex cfDNA screening using RCA/Imaging solution provided the lowest false positive rate and cost. The number of women requiring genetic counselling and diagnostic testing was significantly reduced and women received their cfDNA screening result 9 days sooner compared with the contingent model. While primary cfDNA screening improved the trisomy 21 DR by 3–5%, it was more costly and more women required diagnostic testing.

Conclusion

Reflex cfDNA screening is the most cost-effective prenatal screening strategy. It can improve the efficiency of prenatal aneuploidy screening by reducing the number of patient visits and providing more timely results.

First trimester screening for aneuploidy: may combined test and fetal DNA work together?

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the screening performance of combined test (based on the measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, free β-human chorionic gonadotropin, and maternal age) and fetal DNA screening (NIPS) for trisomies 21 (T21), 18 (T18), and 13 (T13).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Women who accepted screening had a first-trimester combined test (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, free β-human chorionic gonadotropin, nuchal translucency interpreted with maternal age) and fetal DNA.

RESULTS

Among 302 women screened (including 4 with affected pregnancies), our study demonstrated that DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 achieved a detection rate of 100% with a false-positive rate of 0.02%, overcoming the traditional combined test with 75% of sensitivity and 4.7% of false-positive rate. In particular, fetal DNA may be useful in case of intermediate risk, in order to avoid invasive diagnostic procedures such villocentesis and amniocentesis. Because of fetal DNA costs, it can be used in clinical practice as a second step screening in case of intermediate or high risk at combined test.

CONCLUSION

Fetal DNA screening may be successfully implemented in routine care, achieving a high detection rate, low false-positive rate, and, consequently, greater safety with fewer invasive diagnostic tests than other methods of screening.

Benefits and limitations of noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy screening

The introduction of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is the newest option for aneuploidy screening during pregnancy. Compared with other aneuploidy screening options, NIPS offers a higher detection rate for trisomy 21 with a low false-positive rate. However, pretest and post-test patient counseling is essential and should include a discussion of the benefits and limitations, the screening rather than diagnostic nature of the test, and the association of a test failure with an increased risk of aneuploidy. Refer patients for genetic counseling when appropriate, particularly if test failure occurs due to a low fetal fraction or if maternal mosaicism or malignancy is suspected.

Clinical performance of DNA-based prenatal screening using single-nucleotide polymorphisms approach in Thai women with singleton pregnancy

Background

To review the performance of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using targeted single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) approach in mixed‐risk Thai women.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data for detection of trisomy 21 (T21), 18 (T18), 13 (T13), monosomy X (XO), other sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA), and triploidy/vanishing twins (VT) from a single commercial laboratory.

Results

Mean (±SD) gestational age and maternal weight were 13.2 (±2.1) weeks and 125.7 (±22.4) pounds, respectively (n = 8,572). From 462/8,572 (5.4%) no‐calls; 1/462 (0.2%) was uninformative SNPs, and 1/462 chose amniocentesis. Redraw settled 323/460 (70%) samples with low fetal fraction (FF); and 8,434/8,572 (98.4%) were finally reportable, with 131 high risks (1.6%). The median (min‐max) FF of reportable (n = 8,434) and unreportable samples (n = 137) samples were 10.5% (2.6–37.9) and 3.8% (1–14.1), respectively (p < .05). Fetal karyotypes were available in 106/131 (80.9%) and 52/138 (37.7%) high risk and repeated no‐calls, respectively. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for T21 (n = 47), T18 (n = 15), T13 (n = 7), XO (n = 8), other SCA (n = 7), and triploidy/VT were 94%, 100%, 58.3%, 66.7%, 70%, and 57.1%, respectively. None of repeated no‐calls had aneuploidies.

Conclusion

SNP‐based NIPS has high PPVs for T21 and T18. Although the proprietary SNPs library is not population‐specific, uninformative SNPs are uncommon.

Effects of medication intake in early pregnancy on the fetal fraction of cell-free DNA testing

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association between medications intake in early pregnancy and variation in the fetal fraction (FF) in pregnant women undergoing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of women (n = 1051) undergoing cfDNA testing at an academic center. The exposed group included women taking medications (n = 400; 38.1%), while the nonexposed group consisted of women taking no medications (n = 651; 61.9%). Our primary outcome was FF. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses as appropriate.

RESULTS

The FFs were 8.8% (6.6-12.1), 8.7% (6.3-11.6), and 7.7% (5.1-9.3) among women taking 0, 1, and two or more medications, respectively (P < 0.01). Using multivariable linear mixed effects model, the mean FF was significantly lower among those taking two or more medications compared with the nonexposed group. FF was directly correlated with gestational age at the time of cfDNA testing and inversely correlated with maternal obesity. Exposure to metformin was associated with 1.8% (0.2-3.4) lower mean FF when compared with the nonexposed group (P = 0.02). Obesity and intake of two or more medications were associated with higher hazard ratio of having a low FF less than 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to metformin or two or more medications was associated with decreased FF, and obesity is associated with delay in achieving adequate FF percentage. These findings should be considered while counseling patients on test limitations.