Yue Hu1, Wen Liu1, Guoping He1, Jingjing Xu1, Yaqin Peng1, Jing Wang2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China. ahwangjing1968@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study is to assess the performance of expanded noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting chromosome aneuploidies and chromosome copy number variants (CNVs), and elucidate the discordant cases between NIPT and fetal karyotype. METHODS: A total of 2139 single pregnancies have been recruited and sequenced with expanded NIPT. Karyotype analysis and CNV sequencing (CNV-seq) of amniotic fluid were performed in 22 of 23 high-risk, three low-risk NIPT pregnant women with abnormal ultrasound findings in the follow-up, and three non-reportable NIPT pregnant women. The genetic investigation of discordant results between NIPT and amniocytes in three cases was proceeded. Placental samples, fetal samples from the limb, hip, umbilical cord, and maternal peripheral blood leukocytes were collected for CNV-Seq. RESULTS: Expanded NIPT revealed a total of 23 positive pregnancies and yielded the overall positive predictive value (PPV) 65.2%. For T21, T18, and XXY, all the PPV was 100% respectively. For CNVs > 10 Mb and 5-10 Mb, the PPV was 42.8% and 16.7%, respectively. The genetic investigation of placental and fetal samples indicated different levels of placental and fetal mosaicism contributing to two of three verified discordant results. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that screening for CNVs with expanded NIPT is promising although the accuracy rate remains insufficient. The different occurring time of mitotic non-disjunction of different chromosome in early development of embryo results in varying levels of chromosomal mosaicism in different placental and fetal tissues. The result highlights the significance of comprehensive cytogenetic validation of placental and fetal specimens with an inconsistent NIPT results.
PURPOSE: This study is to assess the performance of expanded noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting chromosome aneuploidies and chromosome copy number variants (CNVs), and elucidate the discordant cases between NIPT and fetal karyotype. METHODS: A total of 2139 single pregnancies have been recruited and sequenced with expanded NIPT. Karyotype analysis and CNV sequencing (CNV-seq) of amniotic fluid were performed in 22 of 23 high-risk, three low-risk NIPT pregnant women with abnormal ultrasound findings in the follow-up, and three non-reportable NIPT pregnant women. The genetic investigation of discordant results between NIPT and amniocytes in three cases was proceeded. Placental samples, fetal samples from the limb, hip, umbilical cord, and maternal peripheral blood leukocytes were collected for CNV-Seq. RESULTS: Expanded NIPT revealed a total of 23 positive pregnancies and yielded the overall positive predictive value (PPV) 65.2%. For T21, T18, and XXY, all the PPV was 100% respectively. For CNVs > 10 Mb and 5-10 Mb, the PPV was 42.8% and 16.7%, respectively. The genetic investigation of placental and fetal samples indicated different levels of placental and fetal mosaicism contributing to two of three verified discordant results. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that screening for CNVs with expanded NIPT is promising although the accuracy rate remains insufficient. The different occurring time of mitotic non-disjunction of different chromosome in early development of embryo results in varying levels of chromosomal mosaicism in different placental and fetal tissues. The result highlights the significance of comprehensive cytogenetic validation of placental and fetal specimens with an inconsistent NIPT results.
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: H Christina Fan; Yair J Blumenfeld; Usha Chitkara; Louanne Hudgins; Stephen R Quake Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 11.205
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: Anthony R Gregg; Brian G Skotko; Judith L Benkendorf; Kristin G Monaghan; Komal Bajaj; Robert G Best; Susan Klugman; Michael S Watson Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 8.822