Taiwanese Clinical Experience with Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for DiGeorge Syndrome

High positive predictive value 22q11.2 microdeletion screening by prenatal cell-free DNA testing that incorporates fetal fraction amplification

OBJECTIVE

22q11.2 deletion syndrome (DS) is a serious condition with a range of features. The small microdeletion causing 22q11.2DS makes it technically challenging to detect using standard prenatal cfDNA screening. Here, we assess 22q11.2 microdeletion clinical performance by a prenatal cfDNA screen that incorporates fetal fraction (FF) amplification.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of patients who received Prequel (Myriad Genetics, Inc.), a prenatal cfDNA screening that incorporates FF amplification, and met additional eligibility criteria. Pregnancy outcomes were obtained via a routine process for continuous quality improvement. Samples with diagnostic testing results were used to calculate positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS

379,428 patients met study eligibility criteria, 76 of whom were screen-positive for a de novo 22q11.2 microdeletion. 22 (29.7%) had diagnostic testing results available, and all 22 cases were confirmed as true positives, for a PPV of 100% (95% CI 84.6%-100%). This performance was based on cases that ranged broadly across FF (5.9%-41.1%, mean 23.0%), body mass index (22.3-44.8, mean 29.9), and gestational age at testing (10.0w-34.6w, median 12.7w). Ultrasound findings in screen-positive pregnancies were consistent with those known to be associated with 22q11.2DS.

CONCLUSION

22q11.2 microdeletion screening that incorporates FF amplification demonstrated high PPV across both general and high-risk population cohorts.

Overview of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for the Detection of Fetal Chromosome Abnormalities; Differences in Laboratory Methods and Scope of Testing

Although nearly all noninvasive prenatal testing is currently based on analyzing circulating maternal cell-free DNA, the technical methods usedvary considerably. We review the different methods. Based on validation trials and clinical experience, there are mostly relatively small differences in screening performance for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in singleton pregnancies. Recent reports show low no-call rates for all methods, diminishing its importance when choosing a laboratory. However, method can be an important consideration for twin pregnancies, screening for sex chromosome abnormalities, microdeletion syndromes, triploidy, molar pregnancies, rare autosomal trisomies, and segmental imbalances, and detecting maternal 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.

False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test.

Methods

The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective.

Results

A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies?

Conclusions

Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results.

Validity and Utility of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Copy Number Variations and Microdeletions: A Systematic Review

Valid data on prenatal cell-free DNA-based screening tests for copy number variations and microdeletions are still insufficient. We aimed to compare different methodological approaches concerning the achieved diagnostic accuracy measurements and positive predictive values. For this systematic review, we searched the Scopus and PubMed databases and backward citations for studies published between 2013 and 4 February 2022 and included articles reporting the analytical and clinical performance of cfDNA screening tests for CNVs and microdeletions. Of the 1810 articles identified, 32 met the criteria. The reported sensitivity of the applied tests ranged from 20% to 100%, the specificity from 81.62% to 100%, and the PPV from 3% to 100% for cases with diagnostic or clinical follow-up information. No confirmatory analysis was available in the majority of cases with negative screening results, and, therefore, the NPVs could not be determined. NIPT for CNVs and microdeletions should be used with caution and any developments regarding new technologies should undergo strict evaluation before their implementation into clinical practice. Indications for testing should be in correlation with the application guidelines issued by international organizations in the field of prenatal diagnostics.

Noninvasive prenatal testing for DiGeorge syndrome: is it ready for clinical practice?

None.