Literature DB >> 26211640

The type of feto-placental aneuploidy detected by cfDNA testing may influence the choice of confirmatory diagnostic procedure.

Francesca Romana Grati1, Komal Bajaj2, Francesca Malvestiti1, Cristina Agrati1, Beatrice Grimi1, Barbara Malvestiti1, Eva Pompilii1, Federico Maggi1, Susan Gross2,3, Giuseppe Simoni1, Jose Carlos P Ferreira2,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening can provide false positive/negative results because the fetal fraction originates primarily from trophoblast. Consequently, invasive diagnostic testing is recommended to confirm a high-risk result. Currently, there is debate about the most appropriate invasive method. We sought to estimate the frequency in which a chorionic villus sampling (CVS) performed after a high-risk cfDNA result would require a follow-up amniocentesis due to placental mosaicism.
METHODS: Analyses of the frequencies of the different types of mosaicism involving cytotrophoblasts, for trisomies 21 (T21), 18 (T18), 13 (T13) and monosomy X (MX) among 52,673 CVS karyotypes obtained from cytotrophoblast, mesenchyme and confirmatory amniocentesis.
RESULTS: After a high-risk cfDNA result for T21, 18, 13 and MX, the likelihood of finding CVS mosaicism and need for amniocentesis is, respectively, 2%, 4%, 22% and 59%. When mosaicism is detected by CVS, the likelihood of fetal confirmation by amniocentesis is, respectively, 44%, 14%, 4% and 26%.
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of high-risk cfDNA results for T21/T18, CVS (combining cytotrophoblast and mesenchyme analysis) can be considered, but with the caveat of 2-4% risk of an inconclusive result requiring further testing. In high-risk results for MX/T13, amniocentesis would appear to be the most appropriate follow-up diagnostic test, especially in the absence of sonographic findings.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26211640     DOI: 10.1002/pd.4659

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  8 in total

1.  Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results: a clinical laboratory practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

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

2.  Follow-up of multiple aneuploidies and single monosomies detected by noninvasive prenatal testing: implications for management and counseling.

Authors:  Holly L Snyder; Kirsten J Curnow; Sucheta Bhatt; Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Patient-friendly integrated first trimester screening by NIPT and fetal anomaly scan.

Authors:  Malgorzata Ilona Srebniak; Maarten F C M Knapen; Marieke Joosten; Karin E M Diderich; Sander Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 2.009

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

Authors:  Xinran Lu; Chaohong Wang; Yuxiu Sun; Junxiang Tang; Keting Tong; Jiansheng Zhu
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.009

5.  Trisomy 13-confined placental mosaicism: is there an increased risk of gestational hypertensive disorders?

Authors:  Sarah K Dotters-Katz; Emily Hardisty; Erin Campbell; Neeta Vora
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 6.  Down Syndrome: Current Status, Challenges and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Mohammad Kazemi; Mansoor Salehi; Majid Kheirollahi
Journal:  Int J Mol Cell Med       Date:  2016-08-10

7.  Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part I-clinical impact.

Authors:  Dick Oepkes; G C Lieve Page-Christiaens; Caroline J Bax; Mireille N Bekker; Catia M Bilardo; Elles M J Boon; G Heleen Schuring-Blom; Audrey B C Coumans; Brigitte H Faas; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Attie T Go; Lidewij Henneman; Merryn V E Macville; Eva Pajkrt; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Karin Huijsdens-van Amsterdam; Diane Van Opstal; E J Joanne Verweij; Marjan M Weiss; Erik A Sistermans
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Cytogenomic results following high-chance non-invasive prenatal testing: a UK national audit.

Authors:  Fiona S Togneri; Stephanie K Allen; Kathy Mann; Elaine Holgado; Sian Morgan
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 1.588

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.