Jia-Chi Wang1, Trilochan Sahoo2, Steven Schonberg3, Kimberly A Kopita1, Leslie Ross1, Kyla Patek3, Charles M Strom1. 1. Cytogenetics Laboratory, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, San Juan Capistrano, California, USA. 2. 1] Cytogenetics Laboratory, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, San Juan Capistrano, California, USA [2] Current affiliation: CombiMatrix, Irvine, California, USA. 3. Cytogenetics Laboratory, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Chantilly, Virginia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent published studies have demonstrated the incremental value of the use of cell-free DNA for noninvasive prenatal testing with 100% sensitivity for trisomies 21 and 18 and a specificity of ≥99.7% for both. Data presented by two independent groups suggesting positive results by noninvasive prenatal testing were not confirmed by cytogenetic studies. METHODS: Concordance of results among cases with noninvasive prenatal testing referred for cytogenetic prenatal and/or postnatal studies by karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and/or oligo-single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray was evaluated for 109 consecutive specimens. RESULTS: Cytogenetic results were positive for trisomy 21 in 38 of the 41 noninvasive prenatal testing-positive cases (true-positive rate: 93%) and for trisomy 18 in 16 of the 25 noninvasive prenatal testing-positive cases (true-positive rate: 64%). The true-positive rate was only 44% (7/16 cases) for trisomy 13 and 38% (6/16 cases) for sex chromosome aneuploidy. CONCLUSION: These findings raise concerns about the limitations of noninvasive prenatal testing and the need for analysis of a larger number of false-positive cases to provide true positive predictive values for noninvasive testing and to search for potential biological or technical causes. Our data suggest the need for a careful interpretation of noninvasive prenatal testing results and cautious transmission of the same to providers and patients.
PURPOSE: Recent published studies have demonstrated the incremental value of the use of cell-free DNA for noninvasive prenatal testing with 100% sensitivity for trisomies 21 and 18 and a specificity of ≥99.7% for both. Data presented by two independent groups suggesting positive results by noninvasive prenatal testing were not confirmed by cytogenetic studies. METHODS: Concordance of results among cases with noninvasive prenatal testing referred for cytogenetic prenatal and/or postnatal studies by karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and/or oligo-single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray was evaluated for 109 consecutive specimens. RESULTS: Cytogenetic results were positive for trisomy 21 in 38 of the 41 noninvasive prenatal testing-positive cases (true-positive rate: 93%) and for trisomy 18 in 16 of the 25 noninvasive prenatal testing-positive cases (true-positive rate: 64%). The true-positive rate was only 44% (7/16 cases) for trisomy 13 and 38% (6/16 cases) for sex chromosome aneuploidy. CONCLUSION: These findings raise concerns about the limitations of noninvasive prenatal testing and the need for analysis of a larger number of false-positive cases to provide true positive predictive values for noninvasive testing and to search for potential biological or technical causes. Our data suggest the need for a careful interpretation of noninvasive prenatal testing results and cautious transmission of the same to providers and patients.
Authors: Diana W Bianchi; R Lamar Parker; Jeffrey Wentworth; Rajeevi Madankumar; Craig Saffer; Anita F Das; Joseph A Craig; Darya I Chudova; Patricia L Devers; Keith W Jones; Kelly Oliver; Richard P Rava; Amy J Sehnert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marlise R Luskin; Marie N Discenza; Sarah Rae Easter; Paola Dal Cin; Renius Owen; Bernard Ilagan; Meredith Masiello; Andrew A Lane Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2017-08-15
Authors: Margaret Ann Curnutte; Karen L Frumovitz; Juli M Bollinger; Robert M Cook-Deegan; Amy L McGuire; Mary A Majumder Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Stephanie G Valderramos; Rashmi R Rao; Emily W Scibetta; Neil S Silverman; Christina S Han; Lawrence D Platt Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Athena M Cherry; Yassmine M Akkari; Kimberly M Barr; Hutton M Kearney; Nancy C Rose; Sarah T South; James H Tepperberg; Jeanne M Meck Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Trilochan Sahoo; Karine Hovanes; Michelle N Strecker; Natasa Dzidic; Sara Commander; Mary K Travis Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 8.822