Cytogenomic results following high-chance non-invasive prenatal testing: a UK national audit

The accuracy of prenatal cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities is increasingly used in clinical practice, its diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the performance of cell-free DNA in the detection of sex chromosome abnormalities.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022 for articles relating to cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome abnormalities.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original articles, randomized control trials, conference abstracts, cohort and case-control studies, and case series with more than 10 cases with diagnostic confirmation were considered for inclusion.

METHODS

Quality assessment of each included publication was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The positive predictive value was calculated as the proportion of true positive cases among those who tested positive and underwent diagnostic testing. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled, and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was produced using bivariate models that included studies that had diagnostic confirmation for high- and low-risk women.

RESULTS

The search identified 7553 results. Of these, 380 proceeded to the full-text screening, of which 94 articles were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1,531,240 women tested. All studies reported a confirmatory genetic test. The pooled positive predictive value was 49.4% (95% confidence interval, 45.8-53.1). The pooled positive predictive value was 32.0% (95% confidence interval, 27.0%-37.3%) for monosomy X, 67.6% (95% confidence interval, 62.5%-72.5%) for XXY, 57.5% (95% confidence interval, 51.7%-63.1%) for XXX, and 70.9% (95% confidence interval, 63.9%-77.1%) for XYY. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities were 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 90.8%-96.3%) and 99.5% (95% confidence interval, 99.0%-99.7%), respectively, with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.934 (95% confidence interval, 0.907-0.989).

CONCLUSION

Although the sensitivity and specificity of cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities are high, the positive predictive value was approximately 50%. The positive predictive value was higher for sex chromosome abnormalities with a supernumerary Y chromosome and lower for monosomy X. Clinicians should inform couples about these findings when offering cell-free DNA for sex chromosome abnormalities.

The accuracy of cell-free DNA screening for fetal segmental copy number variants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for microscopic copy number variants (CNVs) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of cfDNA screening for CNVs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Articles published in EMBASE, PubMed or Web of Science before November 2022 were screened for inclusion. This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (23 March 2021, CRD42021250849) prior to initiation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Articles published in English, detailing diagnostic outcomes for at least 10 high-risk CNV results with cfDNA were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The PPV was calculated and pooled with random-effects models for double-arcsine transformed proportions, using cases with diagnostic confirmation. Overall sensitivity, specificity and a summary receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve were calculated using bivariate models. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.

MAIN RESULTS

In all, 63 articles were included in the final analysis, detailing 1 591 459 cfDNA results. The pooled PPV was 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-44.8), with substantial statistical heterogeneity (I²  = 93.9%). Bivariate meta-analysis estimated sensitivity and specificity to be 77.4% (95% CI 65.7-86.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 98.0-99.8), respectively, with an area under the summary ROC curve of 0.947 (95% CI 0.776-0.984).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of women who screen high-risk for CNVs with cfDNA will have an affected fetus. This value is of importance for screening counselling.

A Critical Evaluation of Validation and Clinical Experience Studies in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and Monosomy X

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 21, 18, 13 and monosomy X is widely utilized with massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS), digital analysis of selected regions (DANSR), and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analyses being the most widely reported methods. We searched the literature to find all NIPT clinical validation and clinical experience studies between January 2011 and January 2022. Meta-analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects and univariate regression models for estimating summary performance measures across studies. Bivariate meta-regression was performed to explore the influence of testing method and study design. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses evaluated factors that may have led to heterogeneity. Based on 55 validation studies, the detection rate (DR) was significantly higher for retrospective studies, while the false positive rate (FPR) was significantly lower for prospective studies. Comparing the performance of NIPT methods for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 combined, the SNP method had a higher DR and lower FPR than other methods, significantly so for MPSS, though not for DANSR. The performance of the different methods in the 84 clinical experience studies was consistent with validation studies. Clinical positive predictive values of all NIPT methods improved over the last decade. We conclude that all NIPT methods are highly effective for fetal aneuploidy screening, with performance differences across methodologies.