Cell-free DNA results lead to unexpected diagnosis

Comprehensive Recommendations for the Clinical Management of Pregnant Women With Noninvasive Prenatal Test Results Suspicious of a Maternal Malignancy

In this article, we defined comprehensive recommendations for the clinical follow-up of pregnant women with a malignancy-suspicious NIPT result, on the basis of the vast experience with population-based NIPT screening programs in two European countries complemented with published large data sets. These recommendations provide a tool for classifying NIPT results as malignancy-suspicious, and guide health care professionals in structured clinical decision making for the diagnostic process of pregnant women who receive such a malignancy-suspicious NIPT result.

Incidental finding of maternal malignancy in an unusual non-invasive prenatal test and a review of similar cases

We present a clinical case where a complex abnormal non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) result in a research project revealed carcinoma of the breast in the pregnant woman. Furthermore, the NIPT result did not demonstrate the same fetal chromosomal aberration as the chorion villus sample. A literature search for similar cases was performed identifying 43 unique cases, where abnormal NIPT results were related to maternal malignancy. Malignancy is a rare but important cause of complex abnormal non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) results and should be considered when fetal karyotype and abnormal NIPT results are discordant. Furthermore, a follow-up invasive sample is essential for correct fetal diagnosis when abnormal NIPT results are found.

Discordant cfDNA-NIPT result unraveling a trisomy 12 chronic lymphocytic leukemia in a 37 years old pregnant woman

What's already known about this topic?

Discordant NIPT results can rarely unravel maternal malignancies, especially when multiple chromosomal imbalances are reported. Both solid and hematological neoplasms have been described.

What does this study add?

This is the first case of a discordant NIPT result due to Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia associated with trisomy of the chromosome 12. Putative maternal malignancy should be considered and investigated through sensitive techniques even in presence of a single chromosomal anomaly. This must be considered especially when the imbalance is known to recur in hematological neoplasms.

Liquid biopsy: state of reproductive medicine and beyond

Liquid biopsy is the process of sampling and analyzing body fluids, which enables non-invasive monitoring of complex biological systems in vivo. Liquid biopsy has myriad applications in health and disease as a wide variety of components, ranging from circulating cells to cell-free nucleic acid molecules, can be analyzed. Here, we review different components of liquid biopsy, survey state-of-the-art, non-invasive methods for detecting those components, demonstrate their clinical applications and discuss ethical considerations. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of artificial intelligence in analyzing liquid biopsy data with the aim of developing ethically-responsible non-invasive technologies that can enhance individualized healthcare. While previous reviews have mainly focused on cancer, this review primarily highlights applications of liquid biopsy in reproductive medicine.

Diagnosis of maternal Hodgkin lymphoma following abnormal findings at noninvasive prenatal screening test (NIPT): Report of two cases

Abnormal NIPT results, contrasting with normal fetus development, could disclose maternal malignancy, and this possibility should always be explained during pretest counseling. In this case, a complete diagnostic assessment is recommended and should be managed by a multidisciplinary team to define the best timing for diagnostic procedures, delivery, and treatment.

Fetal sex discordance between noninvasive prenatal screening results and sonography: A single institution's experience and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

With the increasing availability of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) and high-resolution ultrasound, more cases of sex discordance are being identified in routine clinical practice. This can be a source of much concern for families and clinicians. Knowledge about the limitations of NIPS and reasons for discordant results are critical for counseling parents.

AIMS

Here, we present three cases from a single tertiary care referral center. We also review the literature to address potential limitations of NIPS in correctly identifying fetal sex chromosomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, cases of discordant fetal sex were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. In addition, departmental counseling database and cytogenetics laboratory logbooks were reviewed.

RESULTS

In our first case, a 37-year-old G4 P2012 underwent NIPS at 11 weeks gestation and Monosomy X (associated with Turner syndrome) was identified. Morphological sonographic assessment at 20 weeks gestation was consistent with a female fetus following an amniocentesis at 16 weeks that revealed normal 46, XX karyotype. During the third trimester, the patient was diagnosed with Stage IV invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Postnatal follow-up of the neonate was consistent with a phenotypic female. In the second case, a 22-year-old G2 P1001 obese female underwent NIPS at 14 weeks gestation and normal 46, XY karyotype was identified. Morphological sonographic assessment at 20 weeks was not consistent with a male fetus. The patient declined invasive testing. Postnatally, the karyotype was 46, XX and the neonate was phenotypically female. The reason for the discordant results was not identified. In the third case, a 25-year-old G1 P0 obese female underwent NIPS at 13 weeks gestation and normal 46, XY karyotype was identified. Morphological sonographic assessment at 20 weeks was indeterminate; however, follow-up at 24 weeks was consistent with a female fetus. The patient declined invasive prenatal testing. Postnatally, the karyotype was 46, XX, and the neonate was phenotypically female with uterus present on ultrasound. The reason for the discordant results was not identified.

DISCUSSION

Our cases demonstrate possible limitations of NIPS in correctly identifying sex chromosomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers and patients need to be aware of these limitations, and invasive diagnostic prenatal testing should be offered in cases of discordance between NIPS and sonographic sex assessment.

Prenatal Genetic Testing Options

All patients should be offered prenatal screening and diagnosis. Testing options depend on many factors, including patient age, family history, and patient preference. Options are rapidly changing with emerging technology. Aneuploidy screening options include ultrasound, maternal analytes, and cell-free DNA. Prenatal chromosomal microarray is the recommended diagnostic test for patients with anomalies visualized on prenatal ultrasound. Prenatal whole exome sequencing is clinically available but is limited by challenges with counseling, interpretation, and turn-around time. Future technologies are emerging and may soon allow for translation of prenatal diagnosis to in utero therapy.

Biological explanations for discordant noninvasive prenatal test results: Preliminary data and lessons learned

OBJECTIVE

Maternal plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis is a powerful screening tool for Down syndrome. In a pilot series, we examined biologic causes of discordance between the cfDNA test results and the fetal karyotype. We also explored the feasibility of obtaining trio biospecimens by using parental engagement.

METHODS

A convenience sample of women with discordant cfDNA results were recruited by their care providers. We provided shipping materials and instructions for biospecimen collection. Maternal, newborn, and placental samples were examined with droplet digital PCR.

RESULTS

Thirteen of 15 women successfully had biospecimens obtained remotely. High-quality DNA was extracted in 12 of 13 women. Presumed biologic etiologies for discordance were identified in 7 of 12 women: 3 cases from additional clinical review (male renal transplant, vanishing twin, and colon cancer) and 4 cases from additional laboratory investigation using droplet digital PCR (3 with confined placental mosaicism and 1 with true fetal mosaicism).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the biology behind cfDNA-fetal karyotype discordancy is useful for follow-up clinical care. Our study suggests that most cases could be resolved by using a trio biospecimen protocol and parental involvement. To improve accuracy, additional sequencing of biospecimens will be required.

Cherchez la femme: maternal incidental findings can explain discordant prenatal cell-free DNA sequencing results

Circulating DNA fragments in a pregnant woman's plasma derive from three sources: placenta, maternal bone marrow, and fetus. Prenatal sequencing to noninvasively screen for fetal chromosome abnormalities is performed on this mixed sample; results can therefore reflect the maternal as well as the fetoplacental DNA. Although it is recommended that pretest counseling include the possibility of detecting maternal genomic imbalance, this seldom occurs. Maternal abnormalities that can affect a prenatal screening test result include disorders that affect the size and metabolism of DNA, such as B12 deficiency, autoimmune disease, and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Similarly, maternal tumors, both benign and malignant, can release DNA fragments that contain duplications or deletions. Bioinformatics algorithms can subsequently interpret the raw sequencing data incorrectly, resulting in false-positive test reports of fetal monosomies or test failures. Maternal sex-chromosome abnormalities, both constitutional and somatic, can generate results that are discordant with fetal ultrasound examination or karyotype. Maternal copy-number variants and mosaicism for autosomal aneuploidies can also skew interpretation. A maternal etiology should therefore be considered in the differential diagnosis of prenatal cell-free DNA test failures, false-positive and false-negative sequencing results. Further study is needed regarding the clinical utility of reporting maternal incidental findings.