Literature DB >> 25598039

Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146,958 pregnancies.

H Zhang1, Y Gao, F Jiang, M Fu, Y Yuan, Y Guo, Z Zhu, M Lin, Q Liu, Z Tian, H Zhang1, F Chen, T K Lau, L Zhao, X Yi, Y Yin, W Wang.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical performance of massively parallel sequencing-based non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in over 140,000 clinical samples and to compare its performance in low-risk and high-risk pregnancies.
METHODS: Between 1 January 2012 and 31 August 2013, 147,314 NIPT requests to screen for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 using low-coverage whole-genome sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA were received. The results were validated by karyotyping or follow-up of clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: NIPT was performed and results obtained in 146,958 samples, for which outcome data were available in 112,669 (76.7%). Repeat blood sampling was required in 3213 cases and 145 had test failure. Aneuploidy was confirmed in 720/781 cases positive for trisomy 21, 167/218 cases positive for trisomy 18 and 22/67 cases positive for trisomy 13 on NIPT. Nine false negatives were identified, including six cases of trisomy 21 and three of trisomy 18. The overall sensitivity of NIPT was 99.17%, 98.24% and 100% for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, respectively, and specificity was 99.95%, 99.95% and 99.96% for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, respectively. There was no significant difference in test performance between the 72,382 high-risk and 40,287 low-risk subjects (sensitivity, 99.21% vs. 98.97% (P = 0.82); specificity, 99.95% vs. 99.95% (P = 0.98)). The major factors contributing to false-positive and false-negative NIPT results were maternal copy number variant and fetal/placental mosaicism, but fetal fraction had no effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a stringent protocol, the good performance of NIPT shown by early validation studies can be maintained in large clinical samples. This technique can provide equally high sensitivity and specificity in screening for trisomy 21 in a low-risk, as compared to high-risk, population.
Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CNV; NIPT; cell-free DNA; clinical performance; false negative; false positive; low-risk population; mosaicism; trisomy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25598039     DOI: 10.1002/uog.14792

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


  98 in total

1.  Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians.

Authors:  Patricia K Agatisa; Mary Beth Mercer; Marissa Coleridge; Ruth M Farrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Has Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Come of Age?

Authors:  Gautam N Allahbadia
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2015-05

3.  Sequencing of short cfDNA fragments in NIPT improves fetal fraction with higher maternal BMI and early gestational age.

Authors:  Longwei Qiao; Qin Zhang; Yuting Liang; Ang Gao; Yang Ding; Nannan Zhao; Wei Zhang; Hong Li; Yaojuan Lu; Ting Wang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 4.060

Review 4.  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

5.  The Integration of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening into the Existing Prenatal Paradigm: a Survey of Current Genetic Counseling Practice.

Authors:  Emily Suskin; Laura Hercher; Kathleen Erskine Aaron; Komal Bajaj
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Noninvasive Prenatal Testing and Detection of Maternal Cancer.

Authors:  Roberto Romero; Maurice J Mahoney
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  Cell-Free DNA Screening: Complexities and Challenges of Clinical Implementation.

Authors:  Matthew R Grace; Emily Hardisty; Sarah K Dotters-Katz; Neeta L Vora; Jeffrey A Kuller
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.347

9.  Cell-free DNA screening in clinical practice: abnormal autosomal aneuploidy and microdeletion results.

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

10.  Biological explanations for discordant noninvasive prenatal test results: Preliminary data and lessons learned.

Authors:  Louise Wilkins-Haug; Chengsheng Zhang; Eliza Cerveira; Mallory Ryan; Adam Mil-Homens; Qihui Zhu; Honey Reddi; Charles Lee; Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.050

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.