Update in non-invasive prenatal testing

Severe maternal thrombocytopenia and prenatal invasive procedures: still a grey zone

Management of severe thrombocytopenia, particularly of ITP, in pregnancy is mainly based on expert consensus and clinical experience while there are no clear indications about the minimum platelet count requested for prenatal diagnosis invasive procedures. Since the lack of specific recommendations we reported our clinical management of a patient suffering from severe thrombocytopenia, undergoing amniocentesis. Due to the anecdotic possibility of maternal and fetal bleeding in case of severe thrombocytopenia, prophylaxis with IVIG or even corticosteroids could be considered as a safer strategy to prevent post-procedural adverse outcomes.

Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: Current evidence-based prenatal diagnosis and management

Echogenic fetal bowel (EB) is a prenatal ultrasound finding (0.2%-1.4% of all pregnancies) defined as bowel of similar or greater echogenicity than surrounding bone. In fact, the ultrasound assessment is strongly subjective with inter-observer variability. The pathophysiology depends on the underlying condition, apparently related with meconium stasis and hypercellularity. It is often an isolated finding, with possible association with other structural anomalies. About the origin, it was observed in fetuses with cystic fibrosis, congenital infections, thalassemia, intraamniotic bleeding, fetal growth restriction. Fetuses with EB are at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome, such as intrauterine growth restriction, placental dysfunction and perinatal death, highlighting the need for a thorough antenatal management and post-natal follow-up. It seems to be associated with a plenty of conditions, such as a poor fetal outcome, fetal growth restriction and placental dysfunction. Therefore management requires a multidisciplinary approach with different specialties' involvement and the prognosis is influenced by the underlying pathophysiology. In this complex scenario, the present review aims to define the clinical pathway which should be offered to pregnant women in case of finding of fetal EB ultrasound marker, to rule out any suspected pathological cause.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Germany

In the short 10 years following the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), it has been adapted in many countries around the world as a standard screening test. In this review, this development was analyzed with a special focus on Germany. As a result, it can be stated that all known advantages of NIPT apart from "compensating for having no access to centers offering invasive diagnostics" are valid for Germany. In addition, following a review of the international literature, all documented issues with NIPT are also observed in Germany. However, the German Gene Diagnostics Act (GenDG) addresses a number of these issues, for example, the regulations by GenDG hamper induced abortions, based exclusively on an abnormal NIPT result. At the same time, GenDG has created new problems, as a possible collusion between the "right not to know with regard to parts of the examination result" may occur, or that the sex of the fetus must not be reported to the pregnant woman before the 12th week of gestation. Main conclusions drawn are that appropriate training and the continuing education of the physicians providing NIPT-related counseling are needed, as well as the provision of balanced and comprehensive information for the pregnant woman or the couple that is imperative.

A retrospective single-center analysis of prenatal diagnosis and follow-up of 626 chinese patients with positive non-invasive prenatal screening results

This study explored the diagnostic efficiency of different prenatal diagnostic approaches for women with positive non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) results by analyzing their clinical information and pregnancy outcomes. We collected data on 626 NIPS-positive pregnant women from January 2017 to June 2021 and arranged subsequent prenatal diagnostic operations for them after genetic counseling, along with long-term intensive follow-up. A total of 567 women accepted invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) (90.58%), and 262 cases were confirmed as true positives for NIPS. The positive predictive values for trisomies 21 (T21), 18 (T18), and 13 (T13); sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs); rare autosomal trisomies (RATs); and microdeletion and microduplication syndromes (MMS) were 81.13%, 37.93%, 18.42%, 48.83%, 18.37%, and 41.67%, respectively. Discordant results between NIPS and IPD were observed in 48 cases, with the discordance rate being 8.47%. Additionally, there were 43 cases with discordant results between karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA)/copy number variation sequencing. Additional reporting of RATs and MMS with routine NIPS that only detects T21/T18/T13 and SCAs can yield more accurate diagnoses. However, NIPS cannot be used as a substitute for IPD owing to its high false positive rate and discordance with other diagnostic methods. Therefore, we recommend CMA combined with karyotyping as the preferred method for accurately diagnosing NIPS-positive women.

False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test.

Methods

The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective.

Results

A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies?

Conclusions

Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results.