Jing Wang1, Zhi-Wei Wang2, Qin Zhou1, Bin Zhang1, Ting Yin2, Bin Yu1, Lei-Lei Wang2. 1. Department of Medical Genetics, Changzhou Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou 213003, China. 2. Department of Medical Genetics, Lianyungang Maternal and Child Health Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, Lianyungang 222000, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the detectability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) after prenatal screening to detect foetal chromosomal abnormalities in pregnant women at high risk, and the number of foetal abnormalities could be missed by NIPT. METHODS: From January 2009 to March 2018, 3,099 pregnant women at high risk for trisomy 21 and 18 according to the results of prenatal serological screening were enrolled in this study. The women underwent amniocentesis at 18-23 weeks, as well as karyotype testing and/or chromosomal microarray analyses (CMA). We assessed the ability of NIPT to detect chromosomal abnormalities. RESULTS: In all, 177 (5.7%, 177/3,099) chromosomal abnormalities were identified. These included 129 (72.9%) abnormal numbers of chromosomes, 6 (3.4%) chromosome structural abnormalities, and 42 (23.7%) other abnormalities, including copy number variation, inversions, and chromosome additions/deletions. Of the 177 (70.0%) chromosomal abnormalities, 124 were detected and 53 were missed by NIPT. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT could miss 30.0% of the chromosomal abnormalities detected by amniocentesis and cytogenetic testing. This proportion will likely decrease in the future due to further development of NIPT.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the detectability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) after prenatal screening to detect foetal chromosomal abnormalities in pregnant women at high risk, and the number of foetal abnormalities could be missed by NIPT. METHODS: From January 2009 to March 2018, 3,099 pregnant women at high risk for trisomy 21 and 18 according to the results of prenatal serological screening were enrolled in this study. The women underwent amniocentesis at 18-23 weeks, as well as karyotype testing and/or chromosomal microarray analyses (CMA). We assessed the ability of NIPT to detect chromosomal abnormalities. RESULTS: In all, 177 (5.7%, 177/3,099) chromosomal abnormalities were identified. These included 129 (72.9%) abnormal numbers of chromosomes, 6 (3.4%) chromosome structural abnormalities, and 42 (23.7%) other abnormalities, including copy number variation, inversions, and chromosome additions/deletions. Of the 177 (70.0%) chromosomal abnormalities, 124 were detected and 53 were missed by NIPT. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT could miss 30.0% of the chromosomal abnormalities detected by amniocentesis and cytogenetic testing. This proportion will likely decrease in the future due to further development of NIPT.
Authors: Mary E Norton; Bo Jacobsson; Geeta K Swamy; Louise C Laurent; Angela C Ranzini; Herb Brar; Mark W Tomlinson; Leonardo Pereira; Jean L Spitz; Desiree Hollemon; Howard Cuckle; Thomas J Musci; Ronald J Wapner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald J Wapner; Joshua E Babiarz; Brynn Levy; Melissa Stosic; Bernhard Zimmermann; Styrmir Sigurjonsson; Nicholas Wayham; Allison Ryan; Milena Banjevic; Phil Lacroute; Jing Hu; Megan P Hall; Zachary Demko; Asim Siddiqui; Matthew Rabinowitz; Susan J Gross; Matthew Hill; Peter Benn Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Christina M L Alamillo; David Krantz; Mark Evans; Morris Fiddler; Eugene Pergament Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2013-01-27 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Peter Benn; Antoni Borell; Rossa Chiu; Howard Cuckle; Lorraine Dugoff; Brigitte Faas; Susan Gross; Joann Johnson; Ron Maymon; Mary Norton; Anthony Odibo; Peter Schielen; Kevin Spencer; Tianhua Huang; Dave Wright; Yuval Yaron Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: K W Choy; Y K Kwok; Y K Y Cheng; K M Wong; H K Wong; K O Leung; K W Suen; K Adler; C C Wang; T K Lau; M J Schermer; T T Lao; T Y Leung Journal: BJOG Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Stefano Olivieri; Antonio Conti; Sandro Iannaccone; Carlo V Cannistraci; Alessandro Campanella; Marco Barbariga; Franca Codazzi; Ilaria Pelizzoni; Giuseppe Magnani; Mariasabina Pesca; Diego Franciotta; Stefano F Cappa; Massimo Alessio Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jana Weymaere; Ann-Sophie Vander Plaetsen; Yasmine Van Den Branden; Eliska Pospisilova; Olivier Tytgat; Dieter Deforce; Filip Van Nieuwerburgh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 3.752