Cell-free DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in pregnancies at low and high risk for aneuploidy with genetic confirmation

Accuracy of fetal fraction measurements in a single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal test

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy relies on the analysis of fetoplacental cell-free DNA (cfDNA) found in maternal plasma. A minimum cfDNA fetal fraction (FF) is required for reliable test performance, but some methods may have suboptimal accuracy for FF measurement. This study investigated the accuracy of a single-nucleotide polymorphism- (SNP-) based NIPT method to assess FF.

METHODS

FF measurements using SNP-based NIPT in consecutive samples from singleton male pregnancies were compared with FF measured using a "gold standard" Y-chromosome method.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 106,846 samples, the SNP-based FF method showed a standard deviation (SD) of 0.42%. Compared to the Y chromosome FF method, a correlation coefficient, r, of 0.995, and bias of 0.17% were observed. The SD was not substantially different across specific FF ranges or for samples with high-risk NIPT results.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNP-based NIPT method estimates FF with good accuracy, with a SD three to eight times better than other NIPT methods (0.42% vs. 1.3%-3.4%). FF is an important quality control parameter and should be routinely reported as part of NIPT.

Liquid Biopsy Based on Cell-Free DNA and RNA

This review delves into the rapidly evolving landscape of liquid biopsy technologies based on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and cell-free RNA (cfRNA) and their increasingly prominent role in precision medicine. With the advent of high-throughput DNA sequencing, the use of cfDNA and cfRNA has revolutionized noninvasive clinical testing. Here, we explore the physical characteristics of cfDNA and cfRNA, present an overview of the essential engineering tools used by the field, and highlight clinical applications, including noninvasive prenatal testing, cancer testing, organ transplantation surveillance, and infectious disease testing. Finally, we discuss emerging technologies and the broadening scope of liquid biopsies to new areas of diagnostic medicine.

Antenatal reproductive screening for pregnant people including preconception: Provides the best reproductive opportunity for informed consent, quality, and safety

INTRODUCTION

This antenatal screening review will include reproductive screening evidence and approaches for pre-conception and post-conception, using first to third trimester screening opportunities.

METHODS

Focused antenatal screening peer-reviewed publications were evaluated and summarized.

RESULTS

Evidenced-based reproductive antenatal screening elements should be offered and discussed, with the pregnancy planning or pregnant person, during Preconception (genetic carrier screening for reproductive partners, personal and family (including reproductive partner) history review for increased genetic and pregnancy morbidity risks); First Trimester (fetal dating with ultrasound; fetal aneuploidy screening plus consideration for expanded fetal morbidity criteria, if appropriate; pregnant person preeclampsia screening; early fetal anatomy screening; early fetal cardiac screening); Second Trimester for standard fetal anatomy screening (18-22 weeks) including cardiac; pregnant person placental and cord pathology screening; pregnant person preterm birth screening with cervical length measurement); Third Trimester (fetal growth surveillance; continued preterm birth risk surveillance).

CONCLUSION

Antenatal reproductive screening has multiple elements, is complex, is time-consuming, and requires the use of pre- and post-testing counselling for most screening elements. The use of preconception and trimesters 'one to three' requires clear patient understanding and buy-in. Informed consent and knowledge transfer is a main goal for antenatal reproductive screening approaches.

Enlarged cavum septum pellucidum and small thymus as markers for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

BACKGROUND

Enlarged cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) and hypoplastic thymus are proposed extra-cardiac fetal markers for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. We sought to determine if they were part of the fetal phenotype of our cohort of fetuses with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

METHODS

Case-control study of fetuses evaluated from 2016 to 2022. The study group included fetuses with laboratory confirmation of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. The control group included pregnancies with conotruncal cardiac anomalies with normal microarray as well as structurally normal fetuses with normal microarray. The CSP and thymus were routinely measured during anatomical ultrasound in all patients at their initial visit at 27.1 ± 4.7 weeks. The CSP and thymus measurements were classified as abnormal if they were >95% or <5% for gestational age, respectively. The groups were compared using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Logistic regression was performed, and a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed.

RESULTS

We identified 47 fetuses with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and compared them to 47 fetuses with conotruncal anomalies and normal microarray and 47 structurally normal fetuses with normal microarray. 51% (24/47) of fetuses with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome had an enlarged CSP compared to 6% (3/47) of fetuses with a conotruncal anomaly and normal microarray and none of the structurally normal fetuses (p < 0.001). Of the fetuses with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, 83% (39/47) had a hypoplastic or absent thymus compared to 9% (4/47) of the fetuses with a conotruncal anomaly and normal microarray and none of the structurally normal fetuses (p < 0.001). 87% (41/47) of the fetuses with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome had conotruncal cardiac anomalies. Logistic regression revealed that both enlarged CSP and hypoplastic/absent thymus were associated with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. The area under the ROC curve for the two markers was 0.94.

CONCLUSION

An enlarged CSP and hypoplastic/absent thymus appear to be part of the fetal phenotype of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. These markers are associated with conotruncal anomalies in the setting of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome but not in normal controls or fetuses with conotruncal defects and normal microarrays.

Precision medicine in complex diseases-Molecular subgrouping for improved prediction and treatment stratification

Complex diseases are caused by a combination of genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors and comprise common noncommunicable diseases, including allergies, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric and metabolic disorders. More than 25% of Europeans suffer from a complex disease, and together these diseases account for 70% of all deaths. The use of genomic, molecular, or imaging data to develop accurate diagnostic tools for treatment recommendations and preventive strategies, and for disease prognosis and prediction, is an important step toward precision medicine. However, for complex diseases, precision medicine is associated with several challenges. There is a significant heterogeneity between patients of a specific disease-both with regards to symptoms and underlying causal mechanisms-and the number of underlying genetic and nongenetic risk factors is often high. Here, we summarize precision medicine approaches for complex diseases and highlight the current breakthroughs as well as the challenges. We conclude that genomic-based precision medicine has been used mainly for patients with highly penetrant monogenic disease forms, such as cardiomyopathies. However, for most complex diseases-including psychiatric disorders and allergies-available polygenic risk scores are more probabilistic than deterministic and have not yet been validated for clinical utility. However, subclassifying patients of a specific disease into discrete homogenous subtypes based on molecular or phenotypic data is a promising strategy for improving diagnosis, prediction, treatment, prevention, and prognosis. The availability of high-throughput molecular technologies, together with large collections of health data and novel data-driven approaches, offers promise toward improved individual health through precision medicine.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): Combination of copy number variant and gene analyses using an "in-house" target enrichment next generation sequencing-Solution for non-centralized NIPT laboratory?

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have integrated copy number variant (CNV) and gene analysis using target enrichment. Here, we transferred this concept to our routine genetics laboratory, which is not linked to centralized non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) facilities.

METHOD

From a cohort of 100 pregnant women, 22 were selected for the analysis of maternal genomic DNA (gDNA) along with fetal cell-free DNA. Using targeted enrichment, 135 genes were analyzed, combined with aberrations of chromosomes 21, 18, 13, X, and Y. The data were subjected to specificity and sensitivity analyses, and correlated with the results from invasive testing methods.

RESULTS

The sensitivity/specificity was determined for the CNV analysis of chromosomes: 21 (80%/75%), 18 (-/82%), 13 (100%/67%), and Y (100%/100%). The gene detection was valid for maternal gDNA. However, for cell-free fetal DNA, it was not possible to determine the boundary between an artifact and a real sequence variant.

CONCLUSION

The target enrichment method combining CNV and gene detection seems feasible in a regular laboratory. However, this method can only be responsibly optimized with a sufficient number of controls and further validation on a strong bioinformatic background. The present results showed that NIPT should be performed in specialized centers, and that its introduction to isolated laboratories may not provide valid data.

Obstetrical, perinatal, and genetic outcomes associated with nonreportable prenatal cell-free DNA screening results

BACKGROUND

The clinical implications of nonreportable cell-free DNA screening results are uncertain, but such results may indicate poor placental implantation in some cases and be associated with adverse obstetrical and perinatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the outcomes of pregnancies with nonreportable cell-free DNA screening in a cohort of patients with complete genetic and obstetrical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study of prenatal cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Participants who underwent cell-free DNA screening from April 2015 through January 2019 were offered participation. Obstetrical outcomes and neonatal genetic testing results were collected from 21 primary-care and referral centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia. The primary outcome was risk for adverse obstetrical and perinatal outcomes (aneuploidy, preterm birth at <28, <34, and <37 weeks' gestation, preeclampsia, small for gestational age or birthweight <10th percentile for gestational week, and a composite outcome that included preterm birth at <37 weeks, preeclampsia, small for gestational age, and stillbirth at >20 weeks) after nonreportable cell-free DNA screening because of low fetal fraction or other causes. Multivariable analyses were performed, adjusting for variables known to be associated with obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, nonreportable results, or fetal fraction.

RESULTS

In total, 25,199 pregnant individuals were screened, and 20,194 were enrolled. Genetic confirmation was missing in 1165 (5.8%), 1085 (5.4%) were lost to follow-up, and 93 (0.5%) withdrew; the final study cohort included 17,851 (88.4%) participants who had cell-free DNA, fetal or newborn genetic confirmatory testing, and obstetrical and perinatal outcomes collected. Results were nonreportable in 602 (3.4%) participants. A sample was redrawn and testing attempted again in 427; in 112 (26.2%) participants, results were again nonreportable. Nonreportable results were associated with higher body mass index, chronic hypertension, later gestational age, lower fetal fraction, and Black race. Trisomy 13, 18, or 21 was confirmed in 1.6% with nonreportable tests vs 0.7% with reported results (P=.013). Rates of preterm birth at <28, 34, and 37 weeks, preeclampsia, and the composite outcome were higher among participants with nonreportable results, and further increased among those with a second nonreportable test, whereas the rate of small for gestational age infants was not increased. After adjustment for confounders, the adjusted odds ratios were 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.4) and 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-10.8) for aneuploidy, and 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8) and 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.2) for the composite outcome after a first and second nonreportable test, respectively. Of the patients with nonreportable tests, 94.9% had a live birth, as opposed to 98.8% of those with reported test results (adjusted odds ratio for livebirth, 0.20 [95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.30]).

CONCLUSION

Patients with nonreportable cell-free DNA results are at increased risk for a number of adverse outcomes, including aneuploidy, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. They should be offered diagnostic genetic testing, and clinicians should be aware of the increased risk of pregnancy complications.

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.

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.

Noninvasive prenatal screening and maternal malignancy: role of imaging

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) tests for fetal chromosomal anomalies through maternal blood sampling. It is becoming widely available and standard of care for pregnant women in many countries. It is performed in the first trimester of pregnancy, usually between 9 and 12 weeks. Fragments of fetal cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) floating in maternal plasma are detected and analyzed by this test to assess for chromosomal aberrations. Similarly, maternal tumor-derived cell-free DNA (ctDNA) released from the tumor cells also circulates in the plasma. Hence, the presence of genomic anomalies originating from maternal tumor-derived DNA may be detected on the NIPS-based fetal risk assessment in pregnant patients. Presence of multiple aneuploidies or autosomal monosomies are the most commonly reported NIPS abnormalities detected with occult maternal malignancies. When such results are received, the search for an occult maternal malignancy begins, in which imaging plays a crucial role. The most commonly detected malignancies via NIPS are leukemia, lymphoma, breast and colon cancers. Ultrasound is a reasonable radiation-free modality for imaging during pregnancy, specially when there are localizing symptoms or findings, such as palpable lumps. While there are no consensus guidelines on the imaging evaluation for these patients, when there are no localizing symptoms or clinically palpable findings, whole body MRI is recommended as the radiation-free modality of choice to search for an occult malignancy. Based on clinical symptoms, practice patterns, and available resources, breast ultrasound, chest radiographs, and targeted ultrasound evaluations can also be performed initially or as a follow-up for MRI findings. CT is reserved for exceptional circumstances due to its higher radiation dose. This article intends to increase awareness of this rare but stressful clinical scenario and guide imaging evaluation for occult malignancy detected via NIPS during pregnancy.

Maternal Malignancy After Atypical Findings on Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism-Based Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence and clinical outcomes of cell-free DNA results suspicious for maternal malignancy on prenatal cell-free DNA screening with single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based technology.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included data from SNP-based, noninvasive prenatal screening samples from a commercial laboratory from January 2015 to October 2021. Maternal plasma was screened for trisomy 21, 18, and 13; monosomy X; and triploidy. Cases were considered suspicious for maternal malignancy if retrospective bioinformatics and visual inspection of the SNP plot were suggestive of multiple maternal copy number variants across at least two of the tested chromosomes. Clinical follow-up on patients was obtained by contacting individual referring clinician offices by telephone, facsimile, or email.

RESULTS

A total of 2,004,428 noninvasive prenatal screening samples during the study period met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 38 samples (0.002% or 1 in 52,748, 95% CI 1:74,539-1:38,430) had SNP-plot results that were suspicious for maternal malignancy. Maternal health outcomes were obtained in 30 of these patients (78.9%); eight were lost to follow-up. Maternal malignancy or suspected malignancy was identified in 66.7% (20/30) of the 30 patients with clinical follow-up provided by the clinic. The most common maternal malignancies were lymphoma (n=10), breast cancer (n=5), and colon cancer (n=3).

CONCLUSION

Results suspicious for maternal malignancy are rare with SNP-based noninvasive prenatal screening (1:53,000), but two thirds of patients who had a noninvasive prenatal screening result concerning for malignancy in this study had a cancer diagnosis. Investigation for malignancy should be recommended for all pregnant patients with this type of result.

FUNDING SOURCE

This study was funded by Natera, Inc.

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome abnormalities in a general-risk population: An evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

PURPOSE

This workgroup aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for pregnant individuals at general risk for fetal trisomy 21, trisomy 18, or trisomy 13 and to evaluate the utility of NIPS for other chromosomal disorders.

METHODS

The NIPS Evidence-Based Guideline Work Group (n = 7) relied on the results from the recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) systematic review to form the evidentiary basis of this guideline. Workgroup members used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to draft recommendations. The guideline underwent extensive internal and external peer review with a public comment period before approval by the ACMG Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Evidence consistently demonstrated improved accuracy of NIPS compared with traditional screening methods for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in singleton and twin gestations. Identification of rare autosomal trisomies and other microdeletion syndromes with NIPS is an emerging area of interest.

CONCLUSION

ACMG strongly recommends NIPS over traditional screening methods for all pregnant patients with singleton and twin gestations for fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and strongly recommends NIPS be offered to patients to screen for fetal sex chromosome aneuploidy.

Focus on the frontier issue: progress in noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomy from clinical perspectives

The discovery of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood and the rapid development of massively parallel sequencing have revolutionized prenatal testing from invasive to noninvasive. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) based on cffDNA enables the detection of fetal trisomy through sequencing, comparison, and bioassays. Its accuracy is better than that of traditional screening methods, and it is the most advanced clinical application of high-throughput sequencing technologies. However, the existing sequencing methods are limited by high costs and complex sequencing procedures. These limitations restrict the availability of NIPS for pregnant women. Many amplification methods have been developed to overcome the limitations of sequencing methods. The rapid development of non-sequencing methods has not been accompanied by reviews to summarize them. In this review, we initially describe the detection principles for sequencing-based NIPS. We summarize the rapidly evolving amplification technologies, focusing on the need to reduce costs and simplify the procedures. To ensure that the testing systems are feasible and that the testing processes are reliable, we expand our vision to the clinic. We evaluate the clinical validity of NIPS in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Finally, we summarize the application guidelines and discuss the corresponding quality control methods for NIPS. In addition to cffDNA, extracellular vesicle DNA, RNA, protein/peptide, and fetal cells can also be detected as biomarkers of NIPS. With the development of prenatal testing, NIPS has become increasingly important. Notably, NIPS is a screening test instead of a diagnostic test. The testing methods and procedures used in the NIPS process require standardization.

Cell-free DNA screening positive for monosomy X: clinical evaluation and management of suspected maternal or fetal Turner syndrome

Initially provided as an alternative to evaluation of serum analytes and nuchal translucency for the assessment of pregnancies at high risk of trisomy 21, cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy, also referred to as noninvasive prenatal screening, can now also screen for fetal sex chromosome anomalies such as monosomy X as early as 9 to 10 weeks of gestation. Early identification of Turner syndrome, a sex chromosome anomaly resulting from the complete or partial absence of the second X chromosome, allows medical interventions such as optimizing obstetrical outcomes, hormone replacement therapy, fertility preservation and support, and improved neurocognitive outcomes. However, cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome anomalies and monosomy X in particular is associated with high false-positive rates and low positive predictive value. A cell-free DNA result positive for monosomy X may represent fetal Turner syndrome, maternal Turner syndrome, or confined placental mosaicism. A positive screen for monosomy X with discordant results of diagnostic fetal karyotype presents unique interpretation and management challenges because of potential implications for previously unrecognized maternal Turner syndrome. The current international consensus clinical practice guidelines for the care of individuals with Turner syndrome throughout the lifespan do not specifically address management of individuals with a cell-free DNA screen positive for monosomy X. This study aimed to provide context and expert-driven recommendations for maternal and/or fetal evaluation and management when cell-free DNA screening is positive for monosomy X. We highlight unique challenges of cell-free DNA screening that is incidentally positive for monosomy X, present recommendations for determining if the result is a true-positive, and discuss when diagnosis of Turner syndrome is applicable to the fetus vs the mother. Whereas we defer the subsequent management of confirmed Turner syndrome to the clinical practice guidelines, we highlight unique considerations for individuals initially identified through cell-free DNA screening.

Positive predictive value of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based NIPT for aneuploidy in twins: Experience from clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

Twins account for approximately 1 in 30 live births in the United States. However, there are limited clinical experience studies published in noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for detecting aneuploidies in twins. This study reports the performance of an SNP-based NIPT in the largest cohort with known outcomes for high-risk aneuploidy results.

METHOD

This is a retrospective analysis of 18,984 results from commercial single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based NIPT tests performed in twins between October 2, 2017 and December 31, 2019. Follow-up for all 211 high-risk cases was solicited.

RESULTS

Follow-up outcomes were obtained in 105 cases. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for high-risk results were 88.7% (63/71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 79.0%-95.0%) for trisomy 21% and 72.7% (8/11, 95% CI: 39.0%-94.0%) for trisomy 18. The results were stratified into monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ). The PPVs in MZ were 100% for both trisomy 21 (4/4, 95% CI: 40%-100%) and trisomy 18 (1/1, 95% CI: 2.5%-100%). No trisomy 13 cases were detected in the MZ group. The PPVs in DZ were 88.1% (59/67, 95% CI: 77.8%-94.7%), 70.0% (7/10, 95% CI: 34.8%-93.3%), and 66.7% (2/3, 95% CI: 9.4%-99.2%) for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The performance of SNP-based NIPT in this large twin cohort was comparable to previously reported twin NIPT studies. SNP-based NIPT allows for zygosity-based PPV assessment.

Development and performance evaluation of an artificial intelligence algorithm using cell-free DNA fragment distance for non-invasive prenatal testing (aiD-NIPT)

With advances in next-generation sequencing technology, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been widely implemented to detect fetal aneuploidies, including trisomy 21, 18, and 13 (T21, T18, and T13). Most NIPT methods use cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragment count (FC) in maternal blood. In this study, we developed a novel NIPT method using cfDNA fragment distance (FD) and convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence algorithm (aiD-NIPT). Four types of aiD-NIPT algorithm (mean, median, interquartile range, and its ensemble) were developed using 2,215 samples. In an analysis of 17,678 clinical samples, all algorithms showed &gt;99.40% accuracy for T21/T18/T13, and the ensemble algorithm showed the best performance (sensitivity: 99.07%, positive predictive value (PPV): 88.43%); the FC-based conventional Z-score and normalized chromosomal value showed 98.15% sensitivity, with 40.77% and 36.81% PPV, respectively. In conclusion, FD-based aiD-NIPT was successfully developed, and it showed better performance than FC-based NIPT methods.

A Critical Evaluation of Validation and Clinical Experience Studies in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and Monosomy X

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 21, 18, 13 and monosomy X is widely utilized with massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS), digital analysis of selected regions (DANSR), and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analyses being the most widely reported methods. We searched the literature to find all NIPT clinical validation and clinical experience studies between January 2011 and January 2022. Meta-analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects and univariate regression models for estimating summary performance measures across studies. Bivariate meta-regression was performed to explore the influence of testing method and study design. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses evaluated factors that may have led to heterogeneity. Based on 55 validation studies, the detection rate (DR) was significantly higher for retrospective studies, while the false positive rate (FPR) was significantly lower for prospective studies. Comparing the performance of NIPT methods for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 combined, the SNP method had a higher DR and lower FPR than other methods, significantly so for MPSS, though not for DANSR. The performance of the different methods in the 84 clinical experience studies was consistent with validation studies. Clinical positive predictive values of all NIPT methods improved over the last decade. We conclude that all NIPT methods are highly effective for fetal aneuploidy screening, with performance differences across methodologies.

Chromosomal phase improves aneuploidy detection in non-invasive prenatal testing at low fetal DNA fractions

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to detect fetal aneuploidy by sequencing the cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma is being broadly adopted. To detect fetal aneuploidies from maternal plasma, where fetal DNA is mixed with far-larger amounts of maternal DNA, NIPT requires a minimum fraction of the circulating cfDNA to be of placental origin, a level which is usually attained beginning at 10 weeks gestational age. We present an approach that leverages the arrangement of alleles along homologous chromosomes—also known as chromosomal phase—to make NIPT analyses more conclusive. We validate our approach with in silico simulations, then re-analyze data from a pregnant mother who, due to a fetal DNA fraction of 3.4%, received an inconclusive aneuploidy determination through NIPT. We find that the presence of a trisomy 18 fetus can be conclusively inferred from the patient’s same molecular data when chromosomal phase is incorporated into the analysis. Key to the effectiveness of our approach is the ability of homologous chromosomes to act as natural controls for each other and the ability of chromosomal phase to integrate subtle quantitative signals across very many sequence variants. These results show that chromosomal phase increases the sensitivity of a common laboratory test, an idea that could also advance cfDNA analyses for cancer detection.

Non‐invasive prenatal screening for fetal triploidy using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)‐based testing: Differential Diagnosis And Clinical Management In Cases Showing An Extra Haplotype

Objective

An extra haplotype is infrequently encountered in single nucleotide polymorphism(SNP)‐based non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and is usually attributed to an undetected twin or triploidy. We reviewed a large series to establish relative frequencies of these outcomes and identify alternative causes.

Methods

In 515,804 women receiving NIPT from September 2017 through March 2019, all results with an extra haplotype were reviewed. Known viable and vanished twin pregnancies were excluded. For positive cases, pregnancy outcome information was sought.

Results

Of 1005 results with an extra haplotype (1 in 513), pregnancy outcome was available for 773 cases: 11% were confirmed or suspected triploidy; 65% to vanished twin; 10% with pregnancy loss. Rare explanations included complete mole, chimera, undisclosed donor egg pregnancy, maternal organ transplant and one instance of maternal neoplasm. Among triploid cases that were detected and independently confirmed, 23/27 (85%) were diandric.

Conclusion

SNP‐based NIPT, with detection of an extra haplotype, is 11% predictive of triploidy. For results with an extra haplotype, ultrasound is recommended to establish viability, evaluate for twins (viable or vanished), and detect findings consistent with triploidy. Review of patient history, serum screening, and ultrasound will reduce the number of CVS or amniocenteses necessary to confirm a diagnosis of triploidy.

What's already known about this topic?

Both digynic and diandric triploidy are occasionally seen in pregnancies but are extremely rare in live‐births

In cell‐free DNA prenatal screening, the presence of an extra haplotype could be indicative of either twin pregnancy or triploidy

What does this study add?

Outcomes for a large series of prenatal screening tests where an extra haplotype was identified in cell‐free DNA

Complete moles, chimeras, transplantation, and donor egg are additional explanations for extra haplotypes

We discuss prenatal management when an extra haplotype is observed in cell‐free DNA