Population-based trends in invasive prenatal diagnosis for ultrasound-based indications: two decades of change from 1994 to 2016

Association between chromosome abnormities and prenatal diagnosis indicators screening in the second trimester of pregnancy

This study aimed to explore the prenatal indicators in the second trimester of pregnancy and their association with chromosome abnormities (CA) to guide decisions toward invasive diagnostic procedures. Pregnant women who underwent prenatal screening and underwent amniocentesis in the second trimester in our Hospital between June 2017 and February 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The reason for amniocentesis in prenatal screening and diagnoses was extracted from the charts. Finally, 3449 pregnant women were included. Of them, 181 were with CA confirmed by amniocentesis (i.e., the CA group), while 3268 were without CA (i.e., the non-CA group). Compared with the women in the non-CA group, those in the CA group were more likely to be older (30 [27,32] vs 29 [26,31], P < .001), had higher gestational weeks (20 [19,23] vs 19 [18,23], P = .008), an increased risk of advanced maternal age (AMA) (9.4% vs 2.2%, P < .001), had an increased risk of NIPT (IRN) (5.1% vs 1.9%, P < .001), had higher rates of a parental chromosome abnormality (PCA) (1.8% vs 0.9%, P = .002), and had increased risk of trisomy 21 (IRT21) (63.0% vs 45.3%, P < .001). AMA (OR = 4.22, 95% CI: 2.35-7.58, P < .001; AUC = 0.536), IRN (OR = 10.62, 95% CI: 6.66-16.94, P < .001; AUC = 0.589), PCA (OR = 4.77, 95% CI: 2.01-11.32, P < .001; AUC = 0.584), and IRT21 (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47-0.89, P = .008; AUC = 0.515) were independently associated with CA. AMA, IRN, IRT21, and PCA during the second trimester were independently associated with CA, but their predictive values for CA were relatively low. Combining those indicators may improve the predictive value.

Case report: Prenatal diagnosis of rare chromosome mosaicism: discordant results between chorionic villi and amniotic fluid samples

Objective: We described a unique case of near-negative chromosome mosaicism in chorionic villi but complete monosomy X in amniotic fluid. Methods: Chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis were performed separately in the first and second trimesters. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) and rapid aneuploidy detection (QF-PCR and FISH) were performed on placental villi and uncultured amniotic fluid. After pregnancy termination, the placenta, umbilical cord, and fetal muscle tissues were sampled for FISH detection. Results: The CMA revealed a lower signal from chromosome X in chorionic villi, with a copy number of 1.85, implying the presence of mosaic monosomy X. However, the QF-PCR and FISH results were nearly normal. In uncultured amniotic fluid, CMA and rapid aneuploidy detection indicated complete monosomy X. Across different sampling points on the aborted fetus, the FISH results varied from normal, to mosaic, and then complete monosomy X. Conclusion: This case presents a rare and complex situation where sampling from uncultured chorionic villi indicated low-level chromosome mosaicism, while sampling from amniotic fluid revealed complete monosomy X. Although some of these discordant outcomes may be due to methodological limitations, we conclude that prenatal consultation should be combined with fetal ultrasound phenotype and genetic testing for a comprehensive evaluation of fetal genetic abnormalities.

Implications for Prenatal Genetic Testing in the United States After the Reversal of Roe v Wade

Prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing should be offered to every pregnant individual, with methods varying based on gestational age. Since Roe v Wade was overturned in June 2022, many states have implemented gestational age-based abortion restrictions. It is critical that reproductive health care professionals be aware of the interaction between the timing of genetic screening and diagnostic testing and the availability of legal abortion services in their state. We examined individual state abortion restrictions per publicly available data from The New York Times and the Guttmacher Institute and reviewed which genetic screening and diagnostic tests could be performed to provide results in time for individuals to decide whether to terminate their pregnancies legally in each state. As of December 11, 2022, 14 states have restrictions in which no diagnostic testing could be completed before gestational age-based cutoffs. Gestational age-based abortion restrictions may also influence a patient to favor chorionic villous sampling (CVS) over amniocentesis. There are two states, Florida and Arizona, where CVS would be feasible before the state's gestational age limit on abortion but amniocentesis would not. Both CVS and amniocentesis are feasible in 35 states, with legal challenges pending in 8 of the 35. Seven states specifically prohibit abortion for fetuses with genetic abnormalities. Clinicians may be placed in the suboptimal position of counseling patients with screening results alone before the gestational age-based ban in their state. There are several potential downstream consequences of gestational age-based termination restrictions for current genetic screening and testing paradigms, from adjustments to counseling options to potentially higher CVS procedure rates. Clinicians should be prepared for practice patterns to change to best serve patients in this evolving legal context.

Application of Copy Number Variation Detection to Fetal Diagnosis of Echogenic Intracardiac Focus During Pregnancy

Echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF) is one of the most common ultrasound soft markers (USMs) in prenatal screening. However, the association of EIF with chromosomal abnormalities is still controversial. From January 2018 to April 2020, a total of 571 fetuses with USMs in our center were enrolled, among which 150 (26.27%) presented EIFs. We analyzed the karyotype anomalies and copy number variations (CNVs) in fetuses who presented EIFs by comparing their ultrasound indications, maternal ages and gestational stages. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities between fetuses with EIFs and the fetuses with USMs (4.00 vs. 7.71%, p = 0.112). Additionally, the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities was not related to maternal age (4.10% in maternal age below 35 yeas vs. 3.57% in maternal age above 35, p = 1.000). Interestingly, after 28 weeks of gestation, fetuses with EIFs showed more chromosomal abnormalities (20.00%) than that in the group before 28 weeks of gestation (2.22%, p = 0.014), and this result was attributed to the detection of pathogenic CNVs. After birth, 25 of children conducted cardiac development re-examination. Among them, 9 (36%, 9/25) were diagnosed with congenital heart disease, primarily patent foramen oval and ventricular septal defects (7/9, 77.77%). We concluded that the appearance of EIFs in early or mid-trimester would not indicate an increased risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. However, the persistence of EIFs in late trimester was associated with a higher risk of pathology-related CNVs and its persistent appearance may indicate heart development defects after birth. Thus, our results suggest that CNV detection has its advantages in prenatal diagnosis, especially for those with EIFs that persist in the third trimester.

Patient attitudes toward prenatal diagnostic testing during antenatal care in an urban population

OBJECTIVE

Investigate factors that influence the decision to accept or decline diagnostic testing for pregnant women referred for genetic counseling.

METHODS

Cross sectional anonymous survey of pregnant women undergoing genetic counseling at a tertiary care referral center. Subjects' perceived risk of procedure related loss and fetal chromosomal problem were obtained via survey where patients rated risk from 0 (no risk) to 10 (highest risk).

RESULTS

There were no differences in sociodemographic factors between women undergoing a diagnostic procedure compared to those not undergoing a procedure. As the perceived risk for having a baby with genetic problem increased by one point, the estimated odds of having the diagnostic procedure increased by 43% controlling for the perceived risk of procedure related loss (p < .0001). Similarly, as the perceived risk of miscarriage increased by one point, the odds of having the diagnostic procedure decreased by 40%, controlling for the perceived risk of having a baby with a genetic problem (p < .0001). The main reason women cited for not undergoing a procedure was fear of procedure related loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women that decline diagnostic testing have a higher perceived risk of procedure related loss and lower perceived risk of fetal chromosomal abnormality than those who accept.

State-wide utilization and performance of traditional and cell-free DNA-based prenatal testing pathways: the Victorian Perinatal Record Linkage (PeRL) study

OBJECTIVES

To perform individual record linkage of women undergoing screening with cell-free DNA (cfDNA), combined first-trimester screening (CFTS), second-trimester serum screening (STSS), and/or prenatal and postnatal cytogenetic testing with the aim to (1) obtain population-based estimates of utilization of prenatal screening and invasive diagnosis, (2) analyze the performance of different prenatal screening strategies, and (3) report the residual risk of any major chromosomal abnormality following a low-risk aneuploidy screening result.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of women residing in the state of Victoria, Australia, who underwent prenatal screening or invasive prenatal diagnosis in 2015. Patient-funded cfDNA referrals from multiple providers were merged with state-wide results for government-subsidized CFTS, STSS and invasive diagnostic procedures. Postnatal cytogenetic results from products of conception and infants up to 12 months of age were obtained to ascertain cases of false-negative screening results and atypical chromosomal abnormalities. Individual record linkage was performed using LinkageWiz^TM .

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 79 140 births and 66 166 (83.6%) women underwent at least one form of aneuploidy screening. Linkage data were complete for 93.5% (n = 61 877) of women who underwent screening, and of these, 73.2% (n = 45 275) had CFTS alone, 20.2% (n = 12 486) had cfDNA alone; 5.3% (n = 3268) had STSS alone, 1.3% (n = 813) had both CFTS and cfDNA, and < 0.1% (n = 35) had both STSS and cfDNA. CFTS had a combined sensitivity for trisomies 21 (T21), 18 (T18) and 13 (T13) of 89.57% (95% CI, 82.64-93.93%) for a screen-positive rate (SPR) of 2.94%. There were 12 false-negative results in the CFTS pathway, comprising 10 cases of T21, one of T18 and one of T13. cfDNA had a combined sensitivity for T21, T18 and T13 of 100% (95% CI, 95.00-100%) for a SPR of 1.21%. When high-risk cfDNA results for any chromosome (including the sex chromosomes) and failed cfDNA tests were treated as screen positives, the SPR for cfDNA increased to 2.42%. The risk of any major chromosomal abnormality (including atypical abnormalities) detected on prenatal or postnatal diagnostic testing after a low-risk screening result was 1 in 1188 for CFTS (n = 37) and 1 in 762 for cfDNA (n = 16) (P = 0.13). The range of chromosomal abnormalities detected after a low-risk cfDNA result included pathogenic copy-number variants (n = 6), triploidy (n = 3), rare autosomal trisomies (n = 3) and monosomy X (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our state-wide record-linkage analysis delineated the utilization and clinical performance of the multitude of prenatal screening pathways available to pregnant women. The sensitivity of cfDNA for T21, T18 and T13 was clearly superior to that of CFTS. While there was no statistically significant difference in the residual risk of any major chromosomal abnormality after a low-risk CFTS or cfDNA result, there were fewer live infants diagnosed with a major chromosomal abnormality in the cfDNA cohort. These data provide valuable population-based evidence to inform practice recommendations and health policies. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The 100 most-cited articles on prenatal diagnosis: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of citations a published article receives can be used to demonstrate its impact on a field of study. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize the 100 most-cited research articles (T100) published on prenatal diagnosis.

METHODS

The Web of Science (WOS) database was searched for papers on prenatal diagnosis published between 1900 and 2018. The 100 most-cited original articles and reviews were recorded. Each eligible paper was reviewed for authors, journal name, year of publication, country, institution, total citations, citation density, H-index, research field, article type, and keywords.

RESULTS

The T100 were published between 1972 and 2015 with a mean of 332.7 citations per paper (range: 196-1254). Most of the T100 were published between 1990 and 2005, in 35 journals led by New England Journal of Medicine (n = 14) followed by Lancet (n = 10), and Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (n = 8). Studies on method application, which promotes field development, were the majority article type. The team of Lo YM featured prominently in the field, and the United States of America, United Kingdom, and Hong Kong, China were the leading countries/regions. Frequency of cooperation was also highest among these 3 regions. Hierarchical cluster analysis produced 4 groups of keywords.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis provides a historical perspective on scientific progress in prenatal diagnosis and may assist clinicians and researchers in assessing the quality of research over the past 50 years. It also provides concise information to guide future research.