OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) predicted by noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), assess test performance, and compare it with nuchal translucency (NT) screening among patients seen in our prenatal diagnosis center. METHODS: We identified suspected cases of SCA by reviewing results from all NIPT samples sent from our center to commercial laboratories offering analysis by cell-free DNA between 1 December 2012 and 31 July 2015. Records of pregnancies positive for SCA were reviewed for ultrasound findings, NIPT indications, and karyotype results on maternal, fetal, and postnatal samples. Other SCA cases presenting during this period regardless of NIPT status were identified from genetic counseling and cytogenetics laboratory logbooks. RESULTS: Noninvasive prenatal testing predicted SCA in 18/2851 patients (0.63%). All had diagnostic testing of fetal or newborn samples. No patients terminated pregnancies on the basis of NIPT. NIPT suggested triple X in five cases, two with elevated NT: all were confirmed on karyotype. Two Klinefelter syndrome cases were also accurately predicted by NIPT. NIPT indicated monosomy X in 11 cases. Only one was a true positive. Ten were false positives, with 46, XX found on fetal or newborn karyotype. Maternal karyotype was mosaic (45, X[4], 46, XX[26]) in one case. Over the same time period, four additional cases of 45, X were confirmed on fetal samples, all with cystic hygromas. One of these had had a false negative NIPT result. The remaining patients pursued only direct testing via CVS or amniocentesis. CONCLUSIONS: Sex chromosome aneuploidy was frequently suspected on NIPT. False positive rate for monosomy X was surprisingly high (91%). Prediction of other SCA was more accurate. Diagnostic fetal chromosome analysis should be offered after abnormal NIPT or in the presence of cystic hygromas despite normal NIPT. NIPT limitations should be explained in pretest counseling.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) predicted by noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), assess test performance, and compare it with nuchal translucency (NT) screening among patients seen in our prenatal diagnosis center. METHODS: We identified suspected cases of SCA by reviewing results from all NIPT samples sent from our center to commercial laboratories offering analysis by cell-free DNA between 1 December 2012 and 31 July 2015. Records of pregnancies positive for SCA were reviewed for ultrasound findings, NIPT indications, and karyotype results on maternal, fetal, and postnatal samples. Other SCA cases presenting during this period regardless of NIPT status were identified from genetic counseling and cytogenetics laboratory logbooks. RESULTS: Noninvasive prenatal testing predicted SCA in 18/2851 patients (0.63%). All had diagnostic testing of fetal or newborn samples. No patients terminated pregnancies on the basis of NIPT. NIPT suggested triple X in five cases, two with elevated NT: all were confirmed on karyotype. Two Klinefelter syndrome cases were also accurately predicted by NIPT. NIPT indicated monosomy X in 11 cases. Only one was a true positive. Ten were false positives, with 46, XX found on fetal or newborn karyotype. Maternal karyotype was mosaic (45, X[4], 46, XX[26]) in one case. Over the same time period, four additional cases of 45, X were confirmed on fetal samples, all with cystic hygromas. One of these had had a false negative NIPT result. The remaining patients pursued only direct testing via CVS or amniocentesis. CONCLUSIONS:Sex chromosome aneuploidy was frequently suspected on NIPT. False positive rate for monosomy X was surprisingly high (91%). Prediction of other SCA was more accurate. Diagnostic fetal chromosome analysis should be offered after abnormal NIPT or in the presence of cystic hygromas despite normal NIPT. NIPT limitations should be explained in pretest counseling.
Authors: Yuqin Luo; Bei Jia; Kai Yan; Siping Liu; Xiaojie Song; Mingfa Chen; Fan Jin; Yang Du; Juan Wang; Yan Hong; Sha Cao; Dawei Li; Minyue Dong Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Marco La Verde; Luigia De Falco; Annalaura Torella; Giovanni Savarese; Pasquale Savarese; Raffaella Ruggiero; Anna Conte; Vera Fico; Marco Torella; Antonio Fico Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Hilary Bowman-Smart; Julian Savulescu; Christopher Gyngell; Cara Mand; Martin B Delatycki Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.050