Cell-free DNA testing: inadequate implementation of an outstanding technique

Cell-Free DNA Testing: What Is the Reason Why High-Risk Women Choose It?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study wasto describe the past medical history, sociodemographic, and pregnancy characteristics of women at high risk for aneuploidy and to determine which factors are related to her choice of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing instead of invasive diagnostic testing.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective descriptive study including pregnant women from the Western Barcelona public health area at high risk for fetal aneuploidy, defined as a trisomy 21 or 18 risk between 1/10 and 1/250 at the combined first-trimester or at the second-trimester biochemical screening. During 1 year (December 2018 to November 2019), these women were asked to fill in a confidential questionnaire about her past medical history, demographic and pregnancy characteristics, and her opinion about termination of the pregnancy after a counseling consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in which advantages and disadvantages of both testing methods, cfDNA or diagnostic testing, were discussed. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which factors were related with cfDNA uptake.

RESULTS

During the study period, 82 pregnant women filled the questionnaire. The median maternal age was 39.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 37.3-40.9 years), and 73 (89%) of them were 35 years or older. Forty-three (52%) women opted for cfDNA testing, while 39 (48%) chose invasive diagnosis. In a logistic regression analysis, the use of assisted reproductive techniques (OR 13.03; 95% CI: 1.47-115.56; p = 0.021) and Latin American origin (OR 6.66; 95% CI 1.73-25.66; p = 0.006) were shown to be related to a higher cfDNA uptake. In contrast, nonreligious women (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; p = 0.013) and a favorable opinion about termination of pregnancy (OR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.92; p = 0.037) were related with a lower uptake.

CONCLUSION

Half of the pregnant women at high risk for fetal aneuploidy opted for cfDNA testing. The main reason to choose cfDNA was avoiding the risk of pregnancy loss. Women using assisted reproductive techniques and those of Latin American origin preferred cfDNA testing, while nonreligious women and those with a favorable opinion on termination pregnancy preferred invasive testing.

The importance of pre- and post-test counseling for prenatal cell-free DNA screening for common fetal aneuploidies

INTRODUCTION

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening for common fetal aneuploidies has rapidly changed the paradigm of prenatal care. Despite its advantages compared to conventional screening methods, its unexpectedly rapid implementation in clinical practice has generated several ethical and medical issues and misconceptions. Aggressive commercial marketing of cell-free DNA screening and media dissemination of misleading information have added confusion. Areas covered: This review provides an extensive update and will focus on the importance of pre-and post-test counseling for prenatal cell-free DNA screening not previously discussed extensively in the available literature. Additionally, we report cell-free DNA screening implementation in the largest obstetrical tertiary unit in Finland which is one of few countries that provides all prenatal screening methods free of charge for all women and has a very high uptake of first-trimester screening. This is not a systematical review, but rather a narrative overview which includes the most relevant and recent original publications and reviews covering this issue. Expert opinion: Despite being the most accurate method for screening of common fetal aneuploidies, the knowledge and counseling should be substantially improved. Cell-free DNA screening is not a replacement for diagnostic testing and its use in prenatal testing is complex and limited.

Factors associated with common and atypical chromosome abnormalities after positive combined first-trimester screening in Chinese women: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

When cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing is used as a secondary screening tool following combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), cFTS is used to estimate the prior risk for chromosome abnormalities. This study aimed to assess the factors that are associated with common and atypical abnormalities following cFTS, including cFTS risk, advanced maternal age, increased nuchal translucency (NT) ≥3.5 mm, and abnormal levels of serum markers.

METHODS

We reviewed a historical cohort of 1855 Chinese women carrying singleton pregnancies with a positive cFTS [at a threshold of 1:250 for trisomy (T) 21 or 1:180 for T18] in one public hospital over a five-year period. All chromosome abnormalities were confirmed by invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) with karyotyping, with or without array comparative genomic hybridization. Using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, we determined the parameters that were associated with common and atypical abnormalities.

RESULTS

Overall, the prevalence of common and atypical abnormalities was 6.2 and 1.2%, respectively, and the prevalence increased with the risk of T21 by cFTS. In pregnancies with a risk of T21 > 1 in 100, a high risk of both T21 and T18, an increased NT, or a pregnancy-associated plasma A (PAPP-A) level <  0.2 multiple of medians (MoM), the prevalence of common abnormalities was 12.2, 64.7, 25.5 and 33.8%, respectively, while that of atypical abnormalities was 1.6, 3.9, 4.2, and 7.4%, respectively. In the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, out of these four factors, only two (increased NT and PAPP_A <  0.2 MoM) were significant predictors of common and atypical abnormalities, respectively. Of all positive cFTS pregnancies, 50.4% did not have any of these four factors, and the prevalence of common and atypical abnormalities was 1.1 and 0.6%, respectively. There were three atypical abnormalities, all of which were mosaicism, and they were detected among women with IPD alone. The ages of these women were ≥ 35 years. All three pregnancies were continued after proper counseling. After giving birth, only one child had mild abnormalities, while the other two were phenotypically normal.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified factors associated with common and atypical abnormalities after cFTS. These factors can be used to estimate the prior risk for these abnormalities to help with post-cFTS counseling in terms of choosing between cfDNA testing and IPD.

Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVES

To investigate by means of a population-based analysis of a cohort of women who underwent combined first-trimester screening (CFTS), changes in uptake of invasive prenatal diagnosis according to risk of trisomy 21 (T21) on CFTS, and prevalence and methods for ascertainment of atypical chromosome abnormalities.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using state-wide prenatal datasets from Victoria, Australia. A three-step approach was taken to analyze the data: (1) linkage of records between serum screening and diagnostic results; (2) comparison of rates of diagnostic testing according to CFTS T21 risk result category in a 2014-2015 cohort with those of a historical 2002-2004 cohort; (3) detailed analysis of atypical abnormalities in the 2014-2015 group according to CFTS T21 risk result, individual serum analyte level and other indications for invasive diagnostic testing.

RESULTS

In 2014-2015, there were 100 418 CFTS results issued for 146 776 births (68.4%). The overall prevalence of atypical chromosome abnormalities in the entire CFTS cohort was 0.10% and was highest in those with CFTS T21 risk > 1 in 10 (4.6%), or serum analyte levels < 0.2 multiples of the median (MoM) (6.9% for pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and 5.2% for beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG)). Almost half (49.2%) of women with PAPP-A < 0.2 MoM had a risk for T21 on CFTS of less than 1 in 100. The majority (55%) of atypical abnormalities occurred in women with CFTS T21 risk below 1 in 300, and were most commonly detected on ultrasound examination (47.1%).

CONCLUSION

Concerns regarding missed diagnoses of atypical chromosome abnormalities when non-invasive prenatal testing is offered after a result of high risk on CFTS can be mitigated if invasive diagnostic testing is offered to those women with CFTS T21 risk of > 1 in 100, serum PAPP-A or β-hCG < 0.2 MoM, or ultrasound-detected abnormality. This has implications for contingent models of screening. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Valor predictivo positivo del diagnóstico prenatal invasivo para alteraciones cromosómicas

Introducción. El diagnóstico prenatal (DP) invasivo para alteraciones cromosómicas (AC) se realiza según las indicaciones de las pruebas no invasivas y se basa en la probabilidad de encontrar un cariotipo alterado.Objetivos. Identificar las indicaciones para la realización de un procedimiento invasivo con el fin de hacer un DP de AC, calcular el valor predictivo positivo (VPP) de cada indicación y estimar la oportunidad relativa (OR) de encontrar una AC.Materiales y métodos. Estudio transversal que caracterizó las indicaciones de procedimientos invasivos para realizar cariotipos en registros de un centro de diagnóstico genético en Cali, Colombia, en el período 2013-2015.Resultados. De 738 registros de cariotipos analizados, 103 (14.0%) tuvieron AC. Las indicaciones más frecuentes fueron alteración anatómica única en ecografía del segundo trimestre (21.4%) y edad materna (18.8%). Las indicaciones con mayor VPP fueron sonolucencia nucal alterada más otro marcador ecográfico (80.0%) y antecedente de 2 o más abortos (30.8%). Las más altas OR de un cariotipo alterado también fueron la sonolucencia nucal más otro marcador ecográfico (OR=1381.6) y el antecedente de 2 o más abortos (OR=153.5).Conclusiones. La ecografía fue la principal herramienta para indicar procedimientos invasivos de DP. Los marcadores bioquímicos integrados fueron una indicación poco frecuente.

NIPTRIC: an online tool for clinical interpretation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results

To properly interpret the result of a pregnant woman’s non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), her a priori risk must be taken into account in order to obtain her personalised a posteriori risk (PPR), which more accurately expresses her true likelihood of carrying a foetus with trisomy. Our aim was to develop a tool for laboratories and clinicians to calculate easily the PPR for genome-wide NIPT results, using diploid samples as a control group. The tool takes the a priori risk and Z-score into account. Foetal DNA percentage and coefficient of variation can be given default settings, but actual values should be used if known. We tested the tool on 209 samples from pregnant women undergoing NIPT. For Z-scores < 5, the PPR is considerably higher at a high a priori risk than at a low a priori risk, for NIPT results with the same Z-score, foetal DNA percentage and coefficient of variation. However, the PPR is effectively independent under all conditions for Z-scores above 6. A high PPR for low a priori risks can only be reached at Z-scores > 5. Our online tool can assist clinicians in understanding NIPT results and conveying their true clinical implication to pregnant women, because the PPR is crucial for individual counselling and decision-making.

Clinical experience with single-nucleotide polymorphism-based non-invasive prenatal screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) for the detection of fetal 22q11.2 deletion syndrome in clinical practice, assess clinical follow-up and review patient choices for women with high-risk results.

METHODS

In this study, 21 948 samples were submitted for screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome using a SNP-based NIPT and subsequently evaluated. Follow-up was conducted for all cases with a high-risk result.

RESULTS

Ninety-five cases were reported as high risk for fetal 22q11.2 deletion. Diagnostic testing results were available for 61 (64.2%) cases, which confirmed 11 (18.0%) true positives and identified 50 (82.0%) false positives, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 18.0%. Information regarding invasive testing was available for 84 (88.4%) high-risk cases: 57.1% (48/84) had invasive testing and 42.9% (36/84) did not. Ultrasound anomalies were present in 81.8% of true-positive and 18.0% of false-positive cases. Two additional cases were high risk for a maternal 22q11.2 deletion; one was confirmed by diagnostic testing and one had a positive family history. There were three pregnancy terminations related to screening results of 22q11.2 deletion, two of which were confirmed as true positive by invasive testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical experience with this SNP-based non-invasive screening test for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome indicates that these deletions have a frequency of approximately 1 in 1000 in the referral population with most identifiable through this test. Use of this screening method requires the availability of counseling and other management resources for high-risk pregnancies.

The type of feto-placental aneuploidy detected by cfDNA testing may influence the choice of confirmatory diagnostic procedure

OBJECTIVES

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening can provide false positive/negative results because the fetal fraction originates primarily from trophoblast. Consequently, invasive diagnostic testing is recommended to confirm a high-risk result. Currently, there is debate about the most appropriate invasive method. We sought to estimate the frequency in which a chorionic villus sampling (CVS) performed after a high-risk cfDNA result would require a follow-up amniocentesis due to placental mosaicism.

METHODS

Analyses of the frequencies of the different types of mosaicism involving cytotrophoblasts, for trisomies 21 (T21), 18 (T18), 13 (T13) and monosomy X (MX) among 52,673 CVS karyotypes obtained from cytotrophoblast, mesenchyme and confirmatory amniocentesis.

RESULTS

After a high-risk cfDNA result for T21, 18, 13 and MX, the likelihood of finding CVS mosaicism and need for amniocentesis is, respectively, 2%, 4%, 22% and 59%. When mosaicism is detected by CVS, the likelihood of fetal confirmation by amniocentesis is, respectively, 44%, 14%, 4% and 26%.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases of high-risk cfDNA results for T21/T18, CVS (combining cytotrophoblast and mesenchyme analysis) can be considered, but with the caveat of 2-4% risk of an inconclusive result requiring further testing. In high-risk results for MX/T13, amniocentesis would appear to be the most appropriate follow-up diagnostic test, especially in the absence of sonographic findings.