Detection of copy number variants with chromosomal microarray in 10 377 pregnancies at a single laboratory

Reporting Criteria for Prenatally Identified Variants of Uncertain Significance Differs Among Cytogenetics Laboratories in North America

OBJECTIVE

Current technical standards for chromosomal microarray (CMA) interpretation are not prescriptive for reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) identified prenatally. We sought to compare prenatal CMA reporting among cytogenetic labs and identify potential drivers of practice variation.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic cross-sectional survey of cytogeneticists in the United States and Canada from July-December 2023. Participants were identified through the American Cytogenetics Forum List.

RESULTS

Labs reported differences in their size threshold used when reporting CNVs lacking OMIM annotated genes as a VUS, variable use of clinical data such as ultrasound or family history when deciding to report a VUS, and differences in opinion regarding the underlying pathogenicity of certain CNVs. Many cytogeneticists reported concerns about legal liability related to prenatal CMA reporting, and many shared concerns that a patient may terminate a pregnancy based on a VUS.

CONCLUSION

Reporting criteria for prenatally identified variants of uncertain significance differs among cytogenetic laboratories in North America. Many possible drivers of this practice variation were identified, including a lack of national guidelines that comprehensively address the unique considerations for prenatal CMA reporting.

Confirmation and pathogenicity of small copy number variations incidentally detected via a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy platform

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the technical accuracy, inheritance, and pathogenicity of small copy number variants (CNVs) detected by a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) platform.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study performed between 2020 and 2022.

SETTING

Clinic.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 12,157 patients who underwent clinical PGT-A performed by targeted next-generation sequencing for whole chromosome and large segmental aneuploidies.

INTERVENTION(S)

An incidental finding was reported when a CNV gain/loss of at least 3 consecutive amplicons appeared in at least 2 embryos from the same in vitro fertilization cycle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome measures were the specificity, incidence, inheritance, and pathogenicity of small CNVs detected by the PGT-A platform. Accuracy of the PGT-A platform CNV calls was assessed via concordance with the CNV calls (size and genomic location) on chromosomal microarray of the gamete provider(s). Parental origin of the CNV and pathogenicity classifications were also reported.

RESULT(S)

An incidental finding that met reporting criteria was identified in 75 (0.62%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-0.8%) of 12,157 unique PGT-A patients. Chromosomal microarray follow-up was requested for all cases, and results were received for 1 or both members of 65 reproductive couples. In all cases, 1 of the gamete providers was confirmed to have the CNV identified in the embryos (100.0%, N = 65/65; 95% confidence interval, 94.5-100). The identified CNV was of maternal origin in 34 cases (52.3%) and of paternal origin in 31 cases (47.7%). A significant correlation was identified between PGT-A-predicted CNV sizes and chromosomal microarray detected sizes (r = 0.81) and genomic coordinates on parental deoxyribonucleic acid. Twenty-six (40%) of the CNVs were classified as benign/likely benign, 30 (46.2%) as a variant of uncertain significance, and 9 (13.8%) as pathogenic/likely pathogenic.

CONCLUSION(S)

Certain PGT-A platforms may enable the detection of inherited, small CNVs with extremely high specificity without prior knowledge of parental status. Most CNVs in this data set were confirmed to be benign/likely benign or a variant of uncertain significance. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic CNVs associated with a broad range of phenotypic features may also be detected, although a reliable negative predictive value for small CNVs with current PGT-A technologies is unknown because of the many technical challenges.

Large regions of homozygosity in prenatal diagnosis

Chromosomal microarrays (CMA) incorporate single nucleotide polymorphisms to enable the detection of regions of homozygosity (ROH). Here, we retrospectively analyzed 6288 prenatal cases who performed CMA to explored the clinical implications of large ROH in prenatal diagnosis. We analyzed cases with ROH larger than 10 megabases and reviewed the ultrasound findings; karyotype results and pregnancy follow-up data. Cases with possible imprinting disorders were assessed by methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. In total, we identified 50 cases with large ROH and chromosomes 1 and 2 were the most affected. About 59.18% of the ROH cases had ultrasound abnormalities, with the most common findings being ultrasound soft-marker abnormalities. There were seven fetuses had ROH which covered almost the entire chromosome and four had terminal ROH that involved almost the entire long arm of the chromosomes, which indicated uniparental disomy (UPD), of which 70% showed abnormal ultrasound findings. Ten cases with multiple ROH on different chromosomes indicated the third to fifth degree of consanguinity. In this study, we highlighted the clinical relevance of large ROH related to UPD. The analysis of ROH allowed us to gain further understanding of complex cytogenetic and disease mechanisms in prenatal diagnosis.

Diagnostic and prognostic role of soft ultrasound markers in prenatal detection and assessment of foetal abnormalities

Various soft markers can be detected in the ultrasonography of foetuses, which can be related to chromosomal abnormalities and increases the risk of abnormalities, or they can be considered as normal variations that can disappear due to the pregnancy progress. There are different tools to detect chromosomal abnormalities like conventional karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), and non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Therefore, in the present study, we aim to assess the accuracy of ultrasonic soft markers in the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities such as chromosomal structural abnormalities, aneuploidy, and triploidy, especially Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18. A systemic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. We gathered all articles published before August 2023. We selected English studies such as retrospective and cross-sectional ones that assessed the relationship between ultrasonic soft markers and foetal chromosomal abnormalities. A total of 10 articles with 18,580 cases were included in our systematic review article that assessed the foetal abnormalities and aneuploidies by using conventional karyotyping, SNP array, CMA, and NIPT (or NIPS). Trisomy 21, Trisomy 18, and chromosomal structural abnormalities were the most common abnormalities related to ultrasonic soft markers by karyotyping; however, Trisomy 13, 47, XXY, 45, X, and mosaic chromosomal abnormalities were other abnormalities detected. Results by CMA showed Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18 as the most common abnormalities in the foetuses also with ultrasonic soft markers, and other abnormalities were pathogenic copy-number variations, Turner (XO), polyploidy, 22q11.2deletion, and Trisomy13, respectively. It was discovered that there is a greater possibility of having pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) in the groups with multiple ultrasonic soft markers, while foetuses with ultrasonic soft markers have a decreased prevalence of CMA abnormality compared to those who had significant abnormalities or abnormal nuchal translucency. Trisomy 21 was the only abnormality found by NIPT in the groups with 1 and 2 soft markers, while groups with multiple soft markers were all normal. By using SNP array, it was identified that the rate of chromosomal abnormalities such as aneuploidy and triploidy, LOH, and CNVs was lower in the group with a single ultrasonic soft marker compared to the group with structural abnormalities in multiple systems. Trisomy 21, Trisomy 18, and chromosomal structural abnormalities were the most common chromosomal abnormalities that ultrasound soft markers could diagnose. Therefore, it is recommended to employ soft markers besides CMA, SNP array, and NIPS (or NIPT) for greater accuracy in detecting foetus abnormalities.

Validation of low-pass genome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

Chromosomal microarray (CMA), while considered the gold standard for detecting copy number variants (CNVs) in prenatal diagnostics, has its limitations, including the necessity to replace aging microarray equipment, low throughput, a static design, and an inefficient multi-day workflow. This study evaluates the feasibility of low-pass genome sequencing (LP-GS) as a potential replacement for CMA in prenatal diagnostics.

METHODS

We comprehensively compared LP-GS at 10x and 5x average depths with CMA in a prenatal laboratory. We examined parameters, including concordance, sensitivity, specificity, workflow efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

We found a high degree of agreement between LP-GS and CMA for detecting CNVs and absence of heterozygosity. Furthermore, compared to CMA, LP-GS increased workflow efficiency and proved to be cost-neutral at 10x and cost-effective at 5x.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that LP-GS is a promising alternative to CMA in prenatal diagnostics, offering advantages, including a more efficient workflow and scalability for larger testing volumes. Importantly, for clinical laboratories that have adopted next-generation sequencing in a separate capacity, LP-GS facilitates a unified NGS-centric approach, enabling workflow consolidation. By offering a single, streamlined platform for detecting a broad range of genetic variants, LP-GS may represent a critical step toward enhancing the diagnostic capabilities of prenatal laboratories.

Detection rates of abnormalities in over 10,000 amniotic fluid samples at a single laboratory

BACKGROUND

A growing number of cytogenetic techniques have been used for prenatal diagnosis. This study aimed to demonstrate the usefulness of karyotyping, BACs-on-Beads (BoBs) assay and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array in prenatal diagnosis during the second trimester based on our laboratory experience.

METHODS

A total of 10,580 pregnant women with a variety of indications for amniocentesis were enrolled in this retrospective study between January 2015 and December 2020, of whom amniotic fluid samples were analysed in 10,320 women. The main technical indicators of participants in the three different technologies were summarized, and cases of chromosome abnormalities were further evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall abnormality detection rate of karyotyping among all the amniotic fluid samples was 15.4%, and trisomy 21 was the most common abnormality (20.9%). The total abnormality detection rate of the BoBs assay was 5.6%, and the diagnosis rate of microdeletion/microduplication syndromes that were not identified by karyotyping was 0.2%. The detection results of the BoBs assay were 100.0% concordant with karyotyping analysis in common aneuploidies. Seventy (87.5%) cases of structural abnormalities were missed by BoBs assay. The total abnormality detection rate of the SNP array was 21.6%. The detection results of common aneuploidies were exactly the same between SNP array and karyotyping. Overall, 60.1% of structural abnormalities were missed by SNP array. The further detection rate of pathogenic significant copy number variations (CNVs) by SNP was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Karyotyping analysis combined with BoBs assay or SNP array for prenatal diagnosis could provide quick and accurate results. Combined use of the technologies, especially with SNP array, improved the diagnostic yield and interpretation of the results, which contributes to genetic counselling. BoBs assay or SNP array could be a useful supplement to karyotyping.

How to choose a test for prenatal genetic diagnosis: a practical overview

Establishing the diagnosis of a fetal genetic disease in utero expands decision-making opportunities for individuals during pregnancy and enables providers to tailor prenatal care and surveillance to disease-specific risks. The selection of prenatal genetic tests is guided by key details from fetal imaging, family and obstetrical history, suspected diagnoses and mechanisms of disease, an accurate understanding of what abnormalities each test is designed to detect, and, at times, the gestational age at which testing is initiated. Pre- and posttest counseling, by or in conjunction with providers trained in genetics, ensure an accurate understanding of genetic tests, their potential results and limitations, estimated turnaround time for results, and the clinical implications of their findings. As prenatal diagnosis and testing options continue to expand rapidly, it is increasingly important for obstetrical providers to understand how to choose appropriate genetic testing and contextualize the clinical implications of their results.

Prenatal Diagnosis Using Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in High-Risk Pregnancies

Background: To assess the value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) during the prenatal diagnosis of high-risk pregnancies. Methods: Between January 2016 and November 2021, we included 178 chorionic villi and 859 amniocentesis samples from consecutive cases at a multiple tertiary hospital. Each of these high-risk singleton pregnancies had at least one of the following indications: (1) advanced maternal age (AMA; ≥35 years; 546, 52.7%); (2) fetal structural abnormality on ultrasound (197, 19.0%); (3) high-risk first- or second-trimester Down syndrome screen (189, 18.2%), including increased nuchal translucency (≥3.5 mm; 90, 8.7%); or (4) previous pregnancy, child, or family history (105, 10.1%) affected by chromosomal abnormality or genetic disorder. Both G-banding karyotype analysis and CMA were performed. DNA was extracted directly and examined with oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Results: Aneuploidies were detected by both G-banding karyotyping and CMA in 42/1037 (4.05%) cases. Among the 979 cases with normal karyotypes, 110 (10.6%) cases had copy number variants (CNVs) in CMA, including 30 (2.9%) cases with reported pathogenic and likely pathogenic CNVs ≥ 400 kb, 37 (3.6%) with nonreported VOUS, benign, or likely benign CNVs ≥ 400 kb, and 43 (4.1%) with nonreported CNVs < 400 kb. Of the 58 (5.6%) cases with aneuploidy rearrangements, 42 (4.1%) were diagnosed by both G-banding karyotyping and CMA; four inversions, six balanced translocations, and six low mosaic rates were not detected with CMA. Conclusions: CMA is an effective first step for the prenatal diagnosis of high-risk pregnancies with fetal structural anomalies found in ultrasonography or upon positive findings.

Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Fetal malformations occur in 2-3% of pregnancies. They require invasive procedures for cytogenetics and molecular testing. "Structural anomalies" include non-transient anatomic alterations. "Soft markers" are often transient minor ultrasound findings. Anomalies not fitting these definitions are categorized as "dynamic". This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic yield and the rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in fetuses undergoing molecular testing (chromosomal microarray (CMA), exome sequencing (ES), genome sequencing (WGS)) due to ultrasound findings. The CMA diagnostic yield was 2.15% in single soft markers (vs. 0.79% baseline risk), 3.44% in multiple soft markers, 3.66% in single structural anomalies and 8.57% in multiple structural anomalies. Rates for specific subcategories vary significantly. ES showed a diagnostic rate of 19.47%, reaching 27.47% in multiple structural anomalies. WGS data did not allow meta-analysis. In fetal structural anomalies, CMA is a first-tier test, but should be integrated with karyotype and parental segregations. In this class of fetuses, ES presents a very high incremental yield, with a significant VUSs burden, so we encourage its use in selected cases. Soft markers present heterogeneous CMA results from each other, some of them with risks comparable to structural anomalies, and would benefit from molecular analysis. The diagnostic rate of multiple soft markers poses a solid indication to CMA.

Reexamining the optimal nuchal translucency cutoff for diagnostic testing in the cell-free DNA and microarray era: results from the Victorian Perinatal Record Linkage study

BACKGROUND

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recently recommended offering genetic counseling and diagnostic testing for enlarged nuchal translucency at ≥3.0 mm, regardless of previous negative screening with noninvasive prenatal testing.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to perform a population-based, individual record linkage study to determine the optimal definition of an enlarged nuchal translucency for the detection of atypical chromosome abnormalities.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of women resident in Victoria, Australia, undergoing combined first-trimester screening during the 24-month period from January 2015 to December 2016. Linkages between statewide results for combined first-trimester screening, prenatal diagnostic procedures, and postnatal cytogenetic results from products of conception and infants up to 12 months of age were used to ascertain the frequency and type of chromosome abnormality by gestation and nuchal translucency measurement. An atypical chromosome abnormality was defined as any major chromosome abnormality other than whole chromosome aneuploidy involving chromosomes 21, 18, 13, X, and Y.

RESULTS

Of the 81,244 singleton pregnancies undergoing combined first-trimester screening, 491 (0.60%) had a nuchal translucency of ≥3.5 mm, 534 (0.66%) had a nuchal translucency of 3.0 to 3.4 mm, and 80,219 (98.74%) had a nuchal translucency of < 3.0 mm. When grouped by nuchal translucency multiples of the median (MoM), 192 (0.24%) had a nuchal translucency of ≥3.0 MoM, 513 (0.63%) had a nuchal translucency of 1.9 to 2.9 MoM, and 80,539 (99.13%) had a nuchal translucency of <1.9 MoM. A total of 1779 pregnancies underwent prenatal or postnatal diagnostic testing, of which 89.60% were performed by whole-genome single-nucleotide polymorphism chromosomal microarray. The frequency of total major chromosome abnormalities was significantly higher in the group with a nuchal translucency of ≥3.5 mm (147 of 491, 29.94%) than the group with a nuchal translucency of 3.0 to 3.4 mm (21 of 534, 3.93%) or a nuchal translucency of <3.0 mm (71 of 80,219, 0.09%) (P<.001). There were 93 atypical chromosome abnormalities in the total screened cohort. The frequency of an atypical chromosome abnormality was 4.07% (95% confidence interval, 2.51-6.22), 0.37% (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.35), and 0.09% (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.11) in the groups with a nuchal translucency of ≥3.5 mm, 3.0 to 3.4 mm, and <3.0 mm, respectively. The frequency of atypical chromosome abnormalities was 4.69% (95% confidence interval, 2.17-8.71), 2.53% (95% confidence interval, 1.36-4.29), and 0.09% (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.11) in the groups with a nuchal translucency of ≥3.0 MoM, 1.9 to 2.9 MoM, and <1.9 MoM, respectively. When defining thresholds for offering diagnosis with chromosomal microarray at 11 to 13 weeks, both a nuchal translucency threshold of 1.9 MoM and a fixed threshold of 3.0 mm captured 22 of 93 fetuses (23.7%) with an atypical chromosome abnormality. Of these, 50.0% had a coexisting fetal abnormality on ultrasound. However, the gestation-specific threshold of 1.9 MoM had a better specificity than 3.0 mm. The positive predictive value of an enlarged nuchal translucency for any atypical chromosome abnormality was 1 in 47 for nuchal translucency of >3.0 mm and 1 in 32 for nuchal translucency of >1.9 MoM. Our nuchal translucency threshold of 1.9 MoM captured 0.87% of fetuses, thus approximating the 99th centile.

CONCLUSION

A gestational age-adjusted nuchal translucency threshold of 1.9 MoM or 99th centile is superior to the fixed cutoff of 3.0 mm for the identification of atypical chromosome abnormalities. The risk of an atypical chromosome abnormality in a fetus with an enlarged nuchal translucency is more than tripled in the presence of an additional ultrasound abnormality.

Detection of copy number variants with chromosomal microarray in 10 377 pregnancies at a single laboratory

Introduction

Invasive prenatal testing with chromosomal microarray analysis may be a relevant option for all pregnant women, but there is only moderate‐quality evidence for such an offer. We intended to study the prevalence of copy number variants (CNVs) in prenatal samples using a single SNP‐array platform stratified by indication.

Material and methods

A cross‐sectional study was performed based on a cohort. From January 2015 to December 2017, a total of 10 377 prenatal samples were received for prenatal single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)‐array in the laboratory of the Genetics Generation Advancement Corporation. Indications for chromosomal microarray analysis studies included the confirmation of an abnormal karyotype, ultrasound abnormalities, advanced maternal age and parental anxiety. CNVs and region of homozygosity identified by the SNP‐array were analyzed.

Results

Of 10 377 cases, 689 had ultrasound abnormalities and 9688 were ascertained to have other indications. The overall prevalence of CNVs was 2.1% (n = 223/10 377, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9‐2.4), but the prevalence was 4.4% (95% CI 3.0‐6.1) for cases referred with abnormal ultrasound findings and 2.0% (95% CI 1.7‐2.3) for other indications. Of the 223 CNVs detected, 42/10 377 were pathogenic (0.4%, 95% CI 0.3‐0.6), 84 were susceptibility CNV (0.8%, 95% CI 0.6‐1.0) and 97 were variants of uncertain significance (0.9%, 95% CI 0.8‐1.1). Using an SNP‐based platform allowed for the detection of paternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 14 in a fetus with ultrasound abnormality.

Conclusions

With an indication of advanced maternal age but normal ultrasound scans, the prevalence of pathogenic CNVs was 0.4% and that of susceptibility CNV 0.7%. As CNVs are independent of maternal age, the prevalence is likely the same for younger women. Thus, this study provides further evidence that chromosomal microarray analysis should be available for all women who wish to receive diagnostic testing, as this risk is above the cut‐off of 1:300 for Down syndrome, leading to the suggestion of invasive testing. A chromosomal microarray analysis based on SNP‐array platform is preferable, as it can also detect uniparental disomy in addition to copy number variants.