Stephanie G Valderramos1, Rashmi R Rao1, Emily W Scibetta1, Neil S Silverman1, Christina S Han1, Lawrence D Platt2. 1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: ldplatt@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since its commercial release in 2011 cell-free DNA screening has been rapidly adopted as a routine prenatal genetic test. However, little is known about its performance in actual clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate factors associated with the accuracy of abnormal autosomal cell-free DNA results. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 121 patients with abnormal cell-free DNA results from a referral maternal-fetal medicine practice from March 2013 through July 2015. Patients were included if cell-free DNA results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, or microdeletions (if reported by the laboratory) were positive or nonreportable. The primary outcome was confirmed aneuploidy or microarray abnormality on either prenatal or postnatal karyotype or microarray. Secondary outcomes were identifiable associations with in vitro fertilization, twins, ultrasound findings, testing platform, and testing laboratory. Kruskal-Wallis or Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients had abnormal cell-free DNA results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and/or microdeletions. In all, 105 patients had abnormal cell-free DNA results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Of these, 92 (87.6%) were positive and 13 (12.4%) were nonreportable. The results of the 92 positive cell-free DNA were for trisomy 21 (48, 52.2%), trisomy 18 (22, 23.9%), trisomy 13 (17, 18.5%), triploidy (2, 2.2%), and positive for >1 parameter (3, 3.3%). Overall, the positive predictive value of cell-free DNA was 73.5% (61/83; 95% confidence interval, 63-82%) for all trisomies (by chromosome: trisomy 21, 83.0% [39/47; 95% confidence interval, 69-92%], trisomy 18, 65.0% [13/20; 95% confidence interval, 41-84%], and trisomy 13, 43.8% [7/16; 95% confidence interval, 21-70%]). Abnormal cell-free DNA results were associated with positive serum screening (by group: trisomy 21 [17/48, 70.8%]; trisomy 18 [7/22, 77.8%]; trisomy 13 [3/17, 37.5%]; nonreportable [2/13, 16.7%]; P = .004), and abnormal first-trimester ultrasound (trisomy 21 [25/45, 55.6%]; trisomy 18 [13/20, 65%]; trisomy 13 [6/14, 42.9%]; nonreportable [1/13, 7.7%]; P = .003). There was no association between false-positive rates and testing platform, but there was a difference between the 4 laboratories (P = .018). In all, 26 patients had positive (n = 9) or nonreportable (n = 17) microdeletion results. Seven of 9 screens positive for microdeletions underwent confirmatory testing; all were false positives. CONCLUSION: The positive predictive value of 73.5% for cell-free DNA screening for autosomal aneuploidy is lower than reported. The positive predictive value for microdeletion testing was 0%. Diagnostic testing is needed to confirm abnormal cell-free DNA results for aneuploidy and microdeletions.
BACKGROUND: Since its commercial release in 2011 cell-free DNA screening has been rapidly adopted as a routine prenatal genetic test. However, little is known about its performance in actual clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate factors associated with the accuracy of abnormal autosomal cell-free DNA results. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 121 patients with abnormal cell-free DNA results from a referral maternal-fetal medicine practice from March 2013 through July 2015. Patients were included if cell-free DNA results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, or microdeletions (if reported by the laboratory) were positive or nonreportable. The primary outcome was confirmed aneuploidy or microarray abnormality on either prenatal or postnatal karyotype or microarray. Secondary outcomes were identifiable associations with in vitro fertilization, twins, ultrasound findings, testing platform, and testing laboratory. Kruskal-Wallis or Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients had abnormal cell-free DNA results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and/or microdeletions. In all, 105 patients had abnormal cell-free DNA results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Of these, 92 (87.6%) were positive and 13 (12.4%) were nonreportable. The results of the 92 positive cell-free DNA were for trisomy 21 (48, 52.2%), trisomy 18 (22, 23.9%), trisomy 13 (17, 18.5%), triploidy (2, 2.2%), and positive for >1 parameter (3, 3.3%). Overall, the positive predictive value of cell-free DNA was 73.5% (61/83; 95% confidence interval, 63-82%) for all trisomies (by chromosome: trisomy 21, 83.0% [39/47; 95% confidence interval, 69-92%], trisomy 18, 65.0% [13/20; 95% confidence interval, 41-84%], and trisomy 13, 43.8% [7/16; 95% confidence interval, 21-70%]). Abnormal cell-free DNA results were associated with positive serum screening (by group: trisomy 21 [17/48, 70.8%]; trisomy 18 [7/22, 77.8%]; trisomy 13 [3/17, 37.5%]; nonreportable [2/13, 16.7%]; P = .004), and abnormal first-trimester ultrasound (trisomy 21 [25/45, 55.6%]; trisomy 18 [13/20, 65%]; trisomy 13 [6/14, 42.9%]; nonreportable [1/13, 7.7%]; P = .003). There was no association between false-positive rates and testing platform, but there was a difference between the 4 laboratories (P = .018). In all, 26 patients had positive (n = 9) or nonreportable (n = 17) microdeletion results. Seven of 9 screens positive for microdeletions underwent confirmatory testing; all were false positives. CONCLUSION: The positive predictive value of 73.5% for cell-free DNA screening for autosomal aneuploidy is lower than reported. The positive predictive value for microdeletion testing was 0%. Diagnostic testing is needed to confirm abnormal cell-free DNA results for aneuploidy and microdeletions.
Authors: Mary E Norton; Herb Brar; Jonathan Weiss; Ardeshir Karimi; Louise C Laurent; Aaron B Caughey; M Hellen Rodriguez; John Williams; Michael E Mitchell; Charles D Adair; Hanmin Lee; Bo Jacobsson; Mark W Tomlinson; Dick Oepkes; Desiree Hollemon; Andrew B Sparks; Arnold Oliphant; Ken Song Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Diana W Bianchi; Lawrence D Platt; James D Goldberg; Alfred Z Abuhamad; Amy J Sehnert; Richard P Rava Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Roy B Lefkowitz; John A Tynan; Tong Liu; Yijin Wu; Amin R Mazloom; Eyad Almasri; Grant Hogg; Vach Angkachatchai; Chen Zhao; Daniel S Grosu; Graham McLennan; Mathias Ehrich Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: H Zhang; Y Gao; F Jiang; M Fu; Y Yuan; Y Guo; Z Zhu; M Lin; Q Liu; Z Tian; H Zhang; F Chen; T K Lau; L Zhao; X Yi; Y Yin; W Wang Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 7.299
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: Lawrence D Platt; Mary Beth Janicki; Tracy Prosen; James D Goldberg; Joseph Adashek; Reinaldo Figueroa; John Rodis; Wayne Liao; Amy J Sehnert; Holly L Snyder; Steven L Warsof Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jia-Chi Wang; Trilochan Sahoo; Steven Schonberg; Kimberly A Kopita; Leslie Ross; Kyla Patek; Charles M Strom Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Cosmin Deciu; Edward M Kloza; Geralyn M Lambert-Messerlian; James E Haddow; Louis M Neveux; Mathias Ehrich; Dirk van den Boom; Allan T Bombard; Wayne W Grody; Stanley F Nelson; Jacob A Canick Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Justyna Domaradzka; Marta Deperas; Ewa Obersztyn; Anna Kucińska-Chahwan; Nathalie Brison; Kris Van Den Bogaert; Tomasz Roszkowski; Marta Kędzior; Magdalena Bartnik-Głaska; Alicja Łuszczek; Krystyna Jakubów-Durska; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Beata Anna Nowakowska Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.009