Literature DB >> 25358606

Performance of non-invasive prenatal testing when fetal cell-free DNA is absent.

T Takoudes1, B Hamar.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25358606      PMCID: PMC4302254          DOI: 10.1002/uog.14715

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


× No keyword cloud information.
Numerous studies have validated the accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using fetal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to assess the risk of fetal aneuploidies early in pregnancy1, and we have used this technology in our practice since 2012 in both low- and high-risk women2. We are aware that several factors influence the fraction of fetal cfDNA present in maternal blood. Such factors include gestational age and maternal weight3, as well as methods of sample collection and shipping conditions that may lead to maternal cell hemolysis. Some commercial laboratories assert that the accuracy of cfDNA testing is influenced by the amount of fetal cfDNA relative to that of maternal cfDNA. In these laboratories that report fetal fraction, the performance claims for NIPT are based on testing that requires a minimal amount of fetal cfDNA to be present. We are also aware that some commercial laboratory providers assert that measurement of fetal cfDNA is unnecessary and that reliable results can be provided without prior knowledge of the amount of fetal cfDNA analyte in the sample. In order to assess the reliability of NIPT, blood samples from two 44-year-old non-pregnant women were drawn and submitted to five American commercial laboratories offering NIPT. The first sample was sent in September 2014 and the second in October 2014. We reported the gestational age of both pregnancies as 12 weeks on each requisition form, and did not inform any of the five laboratories that the women were in fact not pregnant. Each laboratory was paid out-of-pocket and no third-party was billed. The NIPT results provided to us by each laboratory are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) results for two non-pregnant women from five commercial laboratories

Patient 1
Patient 2
LaboratoryTest result availableDetailsTest result availableDetails
Lab ANoInsufficient fetal cfDNA for accurate NIPT evaluationNoInsufficient fetal cfDNA for accurate NIPT evaluation
Lab BNoUnable to report due to low fetal fraction (fetal fraction reported as 0.6%)NoUnable to report due to low fetal fraction (fetal fraction reported as 0.6%)
Lab CYesNegative, consistent with female fetus (fetal fraction 4.3% reported on request)YesNegative, consistent with female fetus (fetal fraction 3.9% reported on request)
Lab DYesNo aneuploidy detected, two sex chromosomes (XX)YesNo aneuploidy detected, two sex chromosomes (XX)
Lab EYesNo aneuploidy detected, two sex chromosomes (XX)YesNo aneuploidy detected, two sex chromosomes (XX)

cfDNA, cell-free DNA.

Non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) results for two non-pregnant women from five commercial laboratories cfDNA, cell-free DNA. Two laboratories reported that there was insufficient fetal DNA present in the sample to provide a result. Three laboratories, two of which do not measure fetal fraction, provided test results suggestive of a genetically normal female fetus. This example raises concerns about the need for quality standards in NIPT. We feel that the measurement of fetal cfDNA is a basic quality metric required to ensure reliable interpretation of test results. With karyotyping or fluorescence in-situ hybridization analysis, it is standard to require a minimum number of fetal cell colonies to be counted before reporting a result. It seems reasonable that for NIPT, an analogous control measure should be applied. While the promise of accurate performance with NIPT has been acknowledged widely in publications and realized in many clinical experiences, we urge professional medical and laboratory societies to set and enforce appropriate quality-control guidelines for NIPT that are consistent with standard laboratory practice as in other commercially available tests.
  3 in total

1.  Gestational age and maternal weight effects on fetal cell-free DNA in maternal plasma.

Authors:  Eric Wang; Annette Batey; Craig Struble; Thomas Musci; Ken Song; Arnold Oliphant
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by cell-free DNA analysis of maternal blood at 10-11 weeks' gestation and the combined test at 11-13 weeks.

Authors:  M S Quezada; M M Gil; C Francisco; G Oròsz; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 7.299

3.  Nuchal translucency measurement plus non-invasive prenatal testing to screen for aneuploidy in a community-based average-risk population.

Authors:  J Jackson; B Hamar; E Lazar; K Lim; D Rodriguez; K Stock; A J Wolfberg; R Dunk
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 7.299

  3 in total
  12 in total

1.  Fetal fraction evaluation in non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS).

Authors:  Matthew S Hestand; Mark Bessem; Peter van Rijn; Renee X de Menezes; Daoud Sie; Ingrid Bakker; Elles M J Boon; Erik A Sistermans; Marjan M Weiss
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  Clinical Versus Research Sequencing.

Authors:  Yuriy Shevchenko; Sherri Bale
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 6.915

3.  Technological advances in precision medicine and drug development.

Authors:  Elaine Maggi; Nicole E Patterson; Cristina Montagna
Journal:  Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev       Date:  2016-05-05

4.  FetalQuantSD: accurate quantification of fetal DNA fraction by shallow-depth sequencing of maternal plasma DNA.

Authors:  Peiyong Jiang; Xianlu Peng; Xiaoxi Su; Kun Sun; Stephanie C Y Yu; Weng In Chu; Tak Y Leung; Hao Sun; Rossa W K Chiu; Yuk Ming Dennis Lo; Kwan Chee Allen Chan
Journal:  NPJ Genom Med       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 8.617

5.  Obstetric professionals' perceptions of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome: clinical usefulness compared with existing tests and ethical implications.

Authors:  Olivia Miu Yung Ngan; Huso Yi; Samuel Yeung Shan Wong; Daljit Sahota; Shenaz Ahmed
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Measurement of fetal fraction in cell-free DNA from maternal plasma using a panel of insertion/deletion polymorphisms.

Authors:  Angela N Barrett; Li Xiong; Tuan Z Tan; Henna V Advani; Rui Hua; Cecille Laureano-Asibal; Richie Soong; Arijit Biswas; Niranjan Nagarajan; Mahesh Choolani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Development of a new methylation-based fetal fraction estimation assay using multiplex ddPCR.

Authors:  Marios Ioannides; Achilleas Achilleos; Skevi Kyriakou; Elena Kypri; Charalambos Loizides; Kyriakos Tsangaras; Louiza Constantinou; George Koumbaris; Philippos C Patsalis
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 2.183

Review 8.  Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing beyond Trisomies.

Authors:  Ioan Dumitru Suciu; Oana Daniela Toader; Slavyana Galeva; Lucian Pop
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

9.  Detection of cell-free foetal DNA fraction in female-foetus bearing pregnancies using X-chromosomal insertion/deletion polymorphisms examined by digital droplet PCR.

Authors:  Iveta Zednikova; Eva Pazourkova; Sona Lassakova; Barbora Vesela; Marie Korabecna
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Application of FF-QuantSC for the Precise Estimation of Fetal Fraction in Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Two SRY-Translocation Cases.

Authors:  Yan Zeng; Jiong Gao; Hua Yuan; Lijun Zhou; Dehua Cheng; Ming Che; Yandi Qian; Jiaming Fan; Lifang Zhang; Feiyan Qian; Yuling Gao; Tingting Luo; Weiping Chen; Ting Wang; Yaoxiang Jin; Jian Zhao; Xiaoliang Shi; Hongmei Li; Haitao Pan; Cheng Xiong; Yunqin Ni; Shuchao Qiu; Tao Zhang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.