The Clinical Utility of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Pregnant Women With Different Diagnostic Indications

Performance analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 13, 18, and 21: A large-scale retrospective study (2018-2021)

Background

Non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT) are used to screen for trisomy 21, 18, and 13. This study investigated NIPT performance and the clinical significance of its results.

Methods

Pregnant women (n = 282,911) participating in a free NIPT (April 2018-December 2021) were screened for common trisomies, and the results were retrospectively analyzed. NIPT performance was evaluated by its positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. Results were analyzed using number, percentage, and chi-squared/t-test analyses.

Results

After NIPT screening, patients with common trisomies (n = 746) included 457 with T21, 160 with T18, and 129 with T13. Seven false negative cases were identified. High PPV (86.81 %, 56.81 %, 18.18 %), sensitivity (99.25 %, 98.33 %, 100.00 %), and specificity (99.98 %, 99.98 %, 99.97 %) values were detected for trisomy 21, 18, and 13, respectively. The PPVs of common trisomies were significantly different between pregnant women older than 35 (85.53 %, 136/159) and those aged 35 or younger (58.90 %, 311/528) (χ2 = 125.02, P = 2.20e-16). As the NIPT uptake increased from 2018 to 2021, live-born birth defect incidence decreased.

Conclusion

NIPT performed well in screening for T21, T18, and T13. Our discoveries offer an important and useful guideline in laboratory and clinical genetic counseling.

Test performance and clinical utility of expanded non-invasive prenatal test: Experience on 71,883 unselected routine cases from one single center

OBJECTIVE

The balance between benefits and risks of discordant outcomes makes the Genome-Wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (GW-NIPT) controversial. This study aims to evaluate performance and clinical utility in a wide cohort of unselected clinical cases from a single center when a standardized protocol is applied and integrated with a secondary algorithm for data interpretation.

METHOD

In 2 years, over 70,000 pregnant patients underwent GW-NIPT for fetal common trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal aneuploidies, segmental abnormalities (CNVs ≥ 7 Mb) and microdeletions (CNVs < 7 Mb). All samples were uniformly processed with Veriseq NIPT Solution v2 and analyzed using all data metrics along with a home-made algorithm for sequencing data analysis. Results were retrospectively reviewed for clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 71,883 eligible cases including twin pregnancies, 1011 (1.4%) received a positive result and 781 were confirmed by invasive prenatal diagnosis. Clinical sensitivity ranged from 99.65% for common trisomy (T21, T18, T13) to 83.33% for microdeletions, while specificity remained high (99.98%) for each class of fetal abnormalities detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating a standardized protocol with an internal algorithm allowed discordant results to be reduced, yielding high accuracy. Observed reliability in detecting genome-wide chromosomal conditions reinforced the expanded NIPT utility in clinical practice.

Clinical Potential of Expanded Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Detection of Aneuploidies and Microdeletion/Microduplication Syndromes

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of expanded noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT-Plus) for the detection of aneuploidies and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes.

METHODS

A total of 7177 pregnant women were enrolled in the study from June 2020 to March 2022 at Xijing Hospital, China. Cases with NIPT-Plus-positive results were further confirmed by chromosomal karyotyping and a chromosomal microarray analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 112 positive cases (1.56%) were identified by NIPT-Plus, including 60 chromosome aneuploidies and 52 microdeletion/microduplication syndromes. Ninety-five cases were validated by amniocentesis, and 57 were confirmed with true-positive results, comprising 18 trisomy 21, 4 trisomy 18, 1 trisomy 13, 17 sex chromosome aneuploidies, 1 other aneuploidy, and 16 microdeletion/microduplication syndromes. The positive predictive value of total chromosomal abnormalities was 60% (57/95). For trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, sex chromosome aneuploidies, other aneuploidies and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes, the sensitivity was all 100%, the specificity was 100, 99.986, 100, 99.888, 99.958, and 99.636%, and the positive predictive value was 100, 80, 100, 68, 25, and 38.10%, respectively. For all clinical characteristics, the abnormal maternal serum screening group was found to have the highest prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities (1.54%), and the ultrasound abnormality group presented the highest positive predictive value (73.33%).

CONCLUSIONS

NIPT-Plus has great potential for the detection of aneuploidies and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes owing to its high sensitivity, safety, and specificity, which greatly reduces unnecessary invasive procedures and the risk of miscarriage and allows informed maternal choice.

Performance of noninvasive prenatal testing for twin pregnancies in South China

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the detection of chromosomal aneuploidies and copy number variations (CNVs) in twin pregnancies.

METHOD

A cohort of 2010 women with twin pregnancies was recruited. 1331 patients opted for NIPT, and 679 patients opted for expanded NIPT (NIPT-plus). All high-risk patients were advised to undergo invasive prenatal diagnosis. All participants were followed up until 6 months after birth.

RESULTS

Twenty-two cases were predicted to have a high risk of chromosome abnormalities by NIPT, of which 14 pregnant women underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis. The 14 cases included 3 cases of trisomy 21, 1 case of trisomy 18, 1 case of trisomy 7, 2 cases of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs), and 7 cases of CNVs, of which the confirmed cases numbered 2, 1, 0, 1, and 0, respectively. Twenty cases were predicted to have a high risk of chromosome abnormalities by NIPT-plus, of which 16 pregnant women underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis. The 16 cases included 1 case of trisomy 21, 1 case of trisomy 7, 7 cases of SCAs, and 7 cases of CNVs, of which were confirmed in 1, 0, 3, and 2, respectively. No false-negative result was reported during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The NIPT/NIPT-plus has excellent performance in the detection of chromosome aneuploidies in twin pregnancies. But for CNVs, the effectiveness of NIPT is poor, and the NIPT-plus have a certain detection efficiency. It is worth noting that pre- and post-genetic counseling is especially important, and the chorionicity, mode of conception, clinical indications, and fetal fraction should be considered as influencing factors.

The accuracy of prenatal cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities is increasingly used in clinical practice, its diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the performance of cell-free DNA in the detection of sex chromosome abnormalities.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022 for articles relating to cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original articles, randomized control trials, conference abstracts, cohort and case-control studies, and case series with more than 10 cases with diagnostic confirmation were considered for inclusion.

METHODS

Quality assessment of each included publication was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The positive predictive value was calculated as the proportion of true positive cases among those who tested positive and underwent diagnostic testing. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled, and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was produced using bivariate models that included studies that had diagnostic confirmation for high- and low-risk women.

RESULTS

The search identified 7553 results. Of these, 380 proceeded to the full-text screening, of which 94 articles were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1,531,240 women tested. All studies reported a confirmatory genetic test. The pooled positive predictive value was 49.4% (95% confidence interval, 45.8-53.1). The pooled positive predictive value was 32.0% (95% confidence interval, 27.0%-37.3%) for monosomy X, 67.6% (95% confidence interval, 62.5%-72.5%) for XXY, 57.5% (95% confidence interval, 51.7%-63.1%) for XXX, and 70.9% (95% confidence interval, 63.9%-77.1%) for XYY. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities were 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 90.8%-96.3%) and 99.5% (95% confidence interval, 99.0%-99.7%), respectively, with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.934 (95% confidence interval, 0.907-0.989).

CONCLUSION

Although the sensitivity and specificity of cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities are high, the positive predictive value was approximately 50%. The positive predictive value was higher for sex chromosome abnormalities with a supernumerary Y chromosome and lower for monosomy X. Clinicians should inform couples about these findings when offering cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities.

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.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in pregnant women with various clinical indications: A multicenter observational study of 1,854,148 women in China

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for detecting three common trisomies (T21, T18, and T13) in pregnant women with diverse clinical indications.

METHODS

Frequencies of NIPT, of high chance of having one of the three trisomies, and of confirmed trisomies were determined for women with each of seven clinical indications in a national cross-sectional survey of approximately 300 prenatal diagnosis centers. Data were collected for the period from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018 using the Prenatal Diagnosis Technology Management On-line Information System. The performance of NIPT for detecting the three trisomies in pregnant women with different clinical indications was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 5766 true positive cases for T21, T18, and T13 were detected among 1,854,148 samples, giving an overall detection rate of 0.31% (95% CI: 0.30%-0.32%). Most positive cases were associated with "NT thickening" (1.18%) and "advanced maternal age" (0.51%). The detection sensitivities of NIPT were 99.60% for T21, 99.14% for T18, and 100% for T13, while the corresponding specificities were 99.90%, 99.94%, and 99.95%. The corresponding PPVs were 69.77%, 47.24%, and 22.36%. NIPT showed high sensitivity and specificity, regardless of clinical indication. In contrast, PPV for three trisomies varied widely between 9.09% and 66.46% depending on the clinical indication. Across seven clinical indications, PPV ranged from 50.62% to 73.09% for T21, 20.00%-58.33% for T18, and 4.17%-47.37% for T13. The highest PPVs were 73.09% for T21 in pregnancies involving "advanced maternal age", 58.33% for T18 in pregnancies with "NT thickening", and 47.37% for T13 in pregnancies with "NT thickening".

CONCLUSIONS

NIPT shows high sensitivity and specificity for detecting T21, T18, and T13 in pregnant women with different clinical indications. However, PPV depends strongly on clinical indication, highlighting the need to strengthen education and genetic counseling about prenatal screening.

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.

Systematic evidence-based review: The application of noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA in general-risk pregnancies

PURPOSE

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in high-risk populations. This systematic evidence review evaluates NIPS performance in a general-risk population.

METHODS

Medline (PubMed) and Embase were used to identify studies examining detection of Down syndrome (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, copy number variants, and maternal conditions, as well as studies assessing the psychological impact of NIPS and the rate of subsequent diagnostic testing. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates of NIPS performance (P < .05). Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Diagnostic odds ratios were significant (P < .0001) for T21, T18, and T13 for singleton and twin pregnancies. NIPS was accurate (≥99.78%) in detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies. Performance for rare autosomal trisomies and copy number variants was variable. Use of NIPS reduced diagnostic tests by 31% to 79%. Conclusions regarding psychosocial outcomes could not be drawn owing to lack of data. Identification of maternal conditions was rare.

CONCLUSION

NIPS is a highly accurate screening method for T21, T18, and T13 in both singleton and twin pregnancies.

Retrospective analysis of the risk factors associated with failure in obtaining effective noninvasive prenatal test results and pregnancy outcomes: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

: To explore the pregnancy outcomes of women who could not obtain effective results from noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and examine the factors leading to test failure.

METHODS

: From April 2017 to December 2019, 120,041 pregnant women enrolled for voluntary NIPT. The case group comprised of 274 (274/120,041) women who failed to obtain effective NIPT results, and the control group (n = 540) was from the same population who obtained effective NIPT results and matched by age at a 1:2 ratio. Abnormal pregnancy rates between the two groups were analyzed using Chi-square analysis. NIPT failure risk factors were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

: Logistic regression analysis showed that increased maternal age (OR=0.988; 95% CI = 0.982-0.994), increased pregnancy age (OR=0.989; 95%CI = 0.988-0.991), and decreased cell-free fetal DNA concentration (OR=1.050; 95%CI=1.043-1.058) were independent risk factors for NIPT failure. 15 cases showed fetus loss in cases of NIPT failure. There was a significant difference in abnormal pregnancy rate between the NIPT success and failure groups (χ2 = 50.943, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

: The specific interventions, guidance, and precautions are needed for pregnant women during perinatal period, especially those who have no effective NIPT results.

Chances and Challenges of New Genetic Screening Technologies (NIPT) in Prenatal Medicine from a Clinical Perspective: A Narrative Review

In 1959, 63 years after the death of John Langdon Down, Jérôme Lejeune discovered trisomy 21 as the genetic reason for Down syndrome. Screening for Down syndrome has been applied since the 1960s by using maternal age as the risk parameter. Since then, several advances have been made. First trimester screening, combining maternal age, maternal serum parameters and ultrasound findings, emerged in the 1990s with a detection rate (DR) of around 90-95% and a false positive rate (FPR) of around 5%, also looking for trisomy 13 and 18. With the development of high-resolution ultrasound, around 50% of fetal anomalies are now detected in the first trimester. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomy 21, 13 and 18 is a highly efficient screening method and has been applied as a first-line or a contingent screening approach all over the world since 2012, in some countries without a systematic screening program. Concomitant with the rise in technology, the possibility of screening for other genetic conditions by analysis of cfDNA, such as sex chromosome anomalies (SCAs), rare autosomal anomalies (RATs) and microdeletions and duplications, is offered by different providers to an often not preselected population of pregnant women. Most of the research in the field is done by commercial providers, and some of the tests are on the market without validated data on test performance. This raises difficulties in the counseling process and makes it nearly impossible to obtain informed consent. In parallel with the advent of new screening technologies, an expansion of diagnostic methods has begun to be applied after invasive procedures. The karyotype has been the gold standard for decades. Chromosomal microarrays (CMAs) able to detect deletions and duplications on a submicroscopic level have replaced the conventional karyotyping in many countries. Sequencing methods such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) tremendously amplify the diagnostic yield in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies.

Noninvasive prenatal testing for assessing foetal sex chromosome aneuploidy: a retrospective study of 45,773 cases

OBJECTIVE

To assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a screening test for sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) with different maternal characteristics and prenatal decisions in positive cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 45,773 singleton pregnancies with different characteristics that were subjected to NIPT in the Maternity and Child Health Hospital of Anhui Province. The results were validated by karyotyping. Clinical data, diagnostic results, and data on pregnancy outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 314 cases were SCA positive by NIPT; among those, 143 underwent invasive prenatal diagnostic testing, and 58 were true-positive. Overall, the PPVs for 45,X, 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY were 12.5%, 51.72%, 66.67% and 83.33%, respectively. Interestingly, when only pregnant women of advanced maternal age (AMA) were screened, the PPVs for 45,X, 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY were 23.81%, 53.33%, 78.95%, and 66.67%, respectively. The frequency of SCA was significantly higher in the AMA group than in the non-AMA group. The frequencies of 47,XXX and 47,XXY were significantly correlated with maternal age.

CONCLUSION

NIPT performed better in predicting sex chromosome trisomies than monosomy X, and patients with 45,X positive foetuses were more eager to terminate pregnancy than those with 47,XXX and 47,XYY. AMA may be a risk factor of having a foetus with SCA. Our findings may assist in genetic counselling of AMA pregnant women. Our pre- and posttest counselling are essential for familiarizing pregnant women with the benefits and limitations of NIPT, which may ease their anxiety and enable them to make informed choices for further diagnosis and pregnancy decisions.