PURPOSE: Copy-number variant (CNV) assessment is recommended for patients undergoing prenatal diagnostic testing. Noninvasive screening tests have not been extensively validated for CNV detection. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of genome-wide noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) to chromosomal microarray to detect clinically significant findings. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 198 subjects at the time of consent for diagnostic prenatal testing. Genome-wide NIPS results were compared with diagnostic testing results to assess NIPS test performance (n = 160, 38 subjects without microarray results excluded). Cohen's kappa statistic was used to assess test agreement. RESULTS: Genome-wide NIPS did not detect clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities at the same rate as diagnostic testing, κ = 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87). When excluding CNVs <7 Mb and findings outside the limits of genome-wide NIPS, test agreement improved, κ = 0.88 (0.79-0.97) driven by agreement for common aneuploidies (κ = 1.0). However, among patients with an abnormal fetal survey, agreement was only fair, κ = 0.38 (0.08-0.67). CONCLUSION: While NIPS is an excellent screening test for common aneuploidies, genome-wide NIPS misses clinically significant findings detected on routine diagnostic testing. False positive and false negative cases highlight the importance of pretest counseling regarding NIPS limitations, especially in the setting of fetal anomalies.
PURPOSE: Copy-number variant (CNV) assessment is recommended for patients undergoing prenatal diagnostic testing. Noninvasive screening tests have not been extensively validated for CNV detection. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of genome-wide noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) to chromosomal microarray to detect clinically significant findings. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 198 subjects at the time of consent for diagnostic prenatal testing. Genome-wide NIPS results were compared with diagnostic testing results to assess NIPS test performance (n = 160, 38 subjects without microarray results excluded). Cohen's kappa statistic was used to assess test agreement. RESULTS: Genome-wide NIPS did not detect clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities at the same rate as diagnostic testing, κ = 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87). When excluding CNVs <7 Mb and findings outside the limits of genome-wide NIPS, test agreement improved, κ = 0.88 (0.79-0.97) driven by agreement for common aneuploidies (κ = 1.0). However, among patients with an abnormal fetal survey, agreement was only fair, κ = 0.38 (0.08-0.67). CONCLUSION: While NIPS is an excellent screening test for common aneuploidies, genome-wide NIPS misses clinically significant findings detected on routine diagnostic testing. False positive and false negative cases highlight the importance of pretest counseling regarding NIPS limitations, especially in the setting of fetal anomalies.
Authors: Karuna R M van der Meij; Erik A Sistermans; Merryn V E Macville; Servi J C Stevens; Caroline J Bax; Mireille N Bekker; Caterina M Bilardo; Elles M J Boon; Marjan Boter; Karin E M Diderich; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Leonie K Duin; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Monique C Haak; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Nicolette S den Hollander; Iris H I M Hollink; Fernanda S Jehee; Maarten F C M Knapen; Angelique J A Kooper; Irene M van Langen; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Ingeborg H Linskens; Merel C van Maarle; Dick Oepkes; Mijntje J Pieters; G Heleen Schuring-Blom; Esther Sikkel; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Dominique F C M Smeets; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; A Jeanine E M van der Ven; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Lidewij Henneman; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal; Marjan M Weiss Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: M I Srebniak; M Joosten; M F C M Knapen; L R Arends; M Polak; S van Veen; A T J I Go; D Van Opstal Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 7.299
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: Mathias Ehrich; John Tynan; Amin Mazloom; Eyad Almasri; Ron McCullough; Theresa Boomer; Daniel Grosu; Jason Chibuk Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Matthew W Snyder; LaVone E Simmons; Jacob O Kitzman; Bradley P Coe; Jessica M Henson; Riza M Daza; Evan E Eichler; Jay Shendure; Hilary S Gammill Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Helgeson; J Wardrop; T Boomer; E Almasri; W B Paxton; J S Saldivar; N Dharajiya; T J Monroe; D H Farkas; D S Grosu; R M McCullough Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Sara B Hay; Trilochan Sahoo; Mary K Travis; Karine Hovanes; Natasa Dzidic; Charles Doherty; Michelle N Strecker Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.050