Benefits and limitations of noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy screening

Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers

Objective

This study aimed to assess the utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities among fetuses presenting ultrasonic soft markers (USMs).

Methods

A retrospective observational study, spanning from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022, enrolled 539 singleton pregnant women with fetal USMs at our center. Of these, 418 cases (77.6%) underwent NIPT, while 121 cases (22.4%) opted for invasive prenatal diagnosis post-appropriate genetic counseling. Cases with high-risk NIPT results proceeded to invasive prenatal diagnosis, where conventional karyotyping and CMA were concurrently performed. Further stratification was done based on the number of USMs, classifying cases into single-USM and multiple-USM groups.

Results

Of the 24 cases (4.5%) exhibiting abnormal findings, 17 presented numerical chromosomal abnormalities, 2 featured clinically significant copy number variations (CNVs), 3 showed variants of unknown significance (VOUS), 1 displayed LOH, and 1 exhibited chromosome nine inversion. Notably, 18 cases (75%) theoretically detectable by karyotyping (eg, sizes above 10Mb) and 16 cases (66.7%) detectable by NIPT for five common aneuploidies were identified. Six submicroscopic findings (25%) were exclusively detectable by CMA. The predominant clinically relevant aberrations were observed in the thickened nuchal-translucency (TNT) group (9/35, 25.7%), followed by the multiple soft markers group (3/32, 9.3%). In the NIPT group, the false positive rate was 1.22%, and the false negative rate was 0%.

Conclusion

The prevalence of chromosome aneuploidy exceeded that of submicroscopic chromosomal imbalance in pregnant women with fetal USMs. NIPT demonstrated efficacy, particularly for soft markers like echogenic intracardiac focus. However, for those with TNT and multiple soft markers, invasive prenatal diagnosis, including CMA testing, is recommended as the primary investigative approach.

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.

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.