Literature DB >> 24375770

Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening.

O B Petersen1, I Vogel, C Ekelund, J Hyett, A Tabor.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Targeted non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) tests for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies and could be an alternative to traditional karyotyping. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of missing other abnormal karyotypes of probable phenotypic significance by NIPT.
METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based analysis of all singleton pregnancies booked for combined first-trimester screening (cFTS) in Denmark over a 4-year period. Data concerning maternal demographics, cFTS and prenatal or postnatal karyotypes were collected from the Danish Fetal Medicine database. Karyotypes were classified according to whether the chromosomal anomaly would have been detected by NIPT and whether it was likely to affect phenotype.
RESULTS: cFTS was completed in 193638 pregnancies. 10205 (5.3%) had cytogenetic or molecular analysis performed. Of these, 1122 (11.0%) had an abnormal karyotype, of which 262 (23.4%) would have been missed by NIPT, but would probably have been clinically significant. The prevalence of such 'atypical abnormal karyotypes' was increased in women above 45 years of age, in pregnancies with increased nuchal translucency (NT) thickness (≥ 3.5 mm), with abnormal levels of free β-human chorionic gonadotropin (<0.2 or ≥ 5.0 multiples of the median (MoM)) or pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A<0.2 MoM. One or more of these factors was present in 3% of women, and the prevalence of atypical abnormal karyotypes in this high-risk cohort was 1.6%.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of karyotypic abnormalities will be missed by targeted NIPT. Women of advanced maternal age, or with increased fetal NT or abnormal biochemistry, have a higher risk of having a fetus affected by an atypical abnormal karyotype and need to be counseled accordingly when considering NIPT.
Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NIPT; chromosomal anomaly; free fetal DNA; prenatal diagnosis; prenatal screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24375770     DOI: 10.1002/uog.13270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  27 in total

Review 1.  Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women.

Authors:  Mylène Badeau; Carmen Lindsay; Jonatan Blais; Leon Nshimyumukiza; Yemisi Takwoingi; Sylvie Langlois; France Légaré; Yves Giguère; Alexis F Turgeon; William Witteman; François Rousseau
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-11-10

2.  Comparison of indications and results of prenatal invasive diagnostic tests before and after the implementation of the use of cell-free fetal DNA: a tertiary referral center experience.

Authors:  Firat Okmen; Huseyin Ekici; Ismet Hortu; Metehan Imamoglu; Duygu Arican; Haluk Akın; Sermet Sagol
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Have we done our last amniocentesis? Updates on cell-free DNA for Down syndrome screening.

Authors:  Kathryn J Gray; Louise E Wilkins-Haug
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-03-17

4.  Screening Performance and Costs of Different Strategies in Prenatal Screening for Trisomy 21.

Authors:  K O Kagan; M Schmid; M Hoopmann; P Wagner; H Abele
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.915

5.  Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis.

Authors:  Mattias Neyt; Frank Hulstaert; Wilfried Gyselaers
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening.

Authors:  Wybo Dondorp; Guido de Wert; Yvonne Bombard; Diana W Bianchi; Carsten Bergmann; Pascal Borry; Lyn S Chitty; Florence Fellmann; Francesca Forzano; Alison Hall; Lidewij Henneman; Heidi C Howard; Anneke Lucassen; Kelly Ormond; Borut Peterlin; Dragica Radojkovic; Wolf Rogowski; Maria Soller; Aad Tibben; Lisbeth Tranebjærg; Carla G van El; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Limited Clinical Utility of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Subchromosomal Abnormalities.

Authors:  Kitty K Lo; Evangelia Karampetsou; Christopher Boustred; Fiona McKay; Sarah Mason; Melissa Hill; Vincent Plagnol; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Microarray-Based Analysis of Methylation Status of CpGs in Placental DNA and Maternal Blood DNA--Potential New Epigenetic Biomarkers for Cell Free Fetal DNA-Based Diagnosis.

Authors:  Lotte Hatt; Mads M Aagaard; Jesper Graakjaer; Cathrine Bach; Steffen Sommer; Inge E Agerholm; Steen Kølvraa; Anders Bojesen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Maternal Serum Screening Markers and Adverse Outcome: A New Perspective.

Authors:  David Krantz; Terrence Hallahan; David Janik; Jonathan Carmichael
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units.

Authors:  Lyn S Chitty; David Wright; Melissa Hill; Talitha I Verhoef; Rebecca Daley; Celine Lewis; Sarah Mason; Fiona McKay; Lucy Jenkins; Abigail Howarth; Louise Cameron; Alec McEwan; Jane Fisher; Mark Kroese; Stephen Morris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-07-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.