Successful Noninvasive Trisomy 18 Detection Using Single Molecule Sequencing

Noninvasive Prenatal Screening for Common Fetal Aneuploidies Using Single-Molecule Sequencing

Amplification biases caused by next-generation sequencing (NGS) for noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) may be reduced using single-molecule sequencing (SMS), during which PCR is omitted. Therefore, the performance of SMS-based NIPS was evaluated. We used SMS-based NIPS to screen for common fetal aneuploidies in 477 pregnant women. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were estimated. The GC-induced bias was compared between the SMS- and NGS-based NIPS methods. Notably, a sensitivity of 100% was achieved for fetal trisomy 13 (T13), trisomy 18 (T18), and trisomy 21 (T21). The positive predictive value was 46.15% for T13, 96.77% for T18, and 99.07% for T21. The overall specificity was 100% (334/334). Compared with NGS, SMS (without PCR) had less GC bias, a better distinction between T21 or T18 and euploidies, and better diagnostic performance. Overall, our results suggest that SMS improves the performance of NIPS for common fetal aneuploidies by reducing the GC bias introduced during library preparation and sequencing.

Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Common fetal aneuploidies include Down syndrome (trisomy 21 or T21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18 or T18), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13 or T13), Turner syndrome (45,X), Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY), Triple X syndrome (47,XXX) and 47,XYY syndrome (47,XYY). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies is standard care in many countries, but current biochemical and ultrasound tests have high false negative and false positive rates. The discovery of fetal circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in maternal blood offers the potential for genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing (gNIPT) as a more accurate screening method. Two approaches used for gNIPT are massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS) and targeted massively parallel sequencing (TMPS).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MPSS and TMPS for gNIPT as a first-tier test in unselected populations of pregnant women undergoing aneuploidy screening or as a second-tier test in pregnant women considered to be high risk after first-tier screening for common fetal aneuploidies. The gNIPT results were confirmed by a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or neonatal clinical examination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 13 databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science) from 1 January 2007 to 12 July 2016 without any language, search filter or publication type restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant full-text articles, websites of private prenatal diagnosis companies and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies could include pregnant women of any age, ethnicity and gestational age with singleton or multifetal pregnancy. The women must have had a screening test for fetal aneuploidy by MPSS or TMPS and a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or medical records from birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool). Where possible, hierarchical models or simpler alternatives were used for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five studies of 86,139 pregnant women (3141 aneuploids and 82,998 euploids) were included. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias across the four domains of the QUADAS-2 tool but applicability concerns were generally low. Of the 65 studies, 42 enrolled pregnant women at high risk, five recruited an unselected population and 18 recruited cohorts with a mix of prior risk of fetal aneuploidy. Among the 65 studies, 44 evaluated MPSS and 21 evaluated TMPS; of these, five studies also compared gNIPT with a traditional screening test (biochemical, ultrasound or both). Forty-six out of 65 studies (71%) reported gNIPT assay failure rate, which ranged between 0% and 25% for MPSS, and between 0.8% and 7.5% for TMPS.In the population of unselected pregnant women, MPSS was evaluated by only one study; the study assessed T21, T18 and T13. TMPS was assessed for T21 in four studies involving unselected cohorts; three of the studies also assessed T18 and 13. In pooled analyses (88 T21 cases, 22 T18 cases, eight T13 cases and 20,649 unaffected pregnancies (non T21, T18 and T13)), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of TMPS was 99.2% (78.2% to 100%), 90.9% (70.0% to 97.7%) and 65.1% (9.16% to 97.2%) for T21, T18 and T13, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificity was above 99.9% for T21, T18 and T13.In high-risk populations, MPSS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in 30, 28, 20 and 12 studies, respectively. In pooled analyses (1048 T21 cases, 332 T18 cases, 128 T13 cases and 15,797 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of MPSS was 99.7% (98.0% to 100%), 97.8% (92.5% to 99.4%), 95.8% (86.1% to 98.9%) and 91.7% (78.3% to 97.1%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificities (95% CI) were 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.8% (99.8% to 99.9%) and 99.6% (98.9% to 99.8%). In this risk group, TMPS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in six, five, two and four studies. In pooled analyses (246 T21 cases, 112 T18 cases, 20 T13 cases and 4282 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% CI) of TMPS was 99.2% (96.8% to 99.8%), 98.2% (93.1% to 99.6%), 100% (83.9% to 100%) and 92.4% (84.1% to 96.5%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X respectively. The clinical specificities were above 100% for T21, T18 and T13 and 99.8% (98.3% to 100%) for 45,X. Indirect comparisons of MPSS and TMPS for T21, T18 and 45,X showed no statistical difference in clinical sensitivity, clinical specificity or both. Due to limited data, comparative meta-analysis of MPSS and TMPS was not possible for T13.We were unable to perform meta-analyses of gNIPT for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY because there were very few or no studies in one or more risk groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These results show that MPSS and TMPS perform similarly in terms of clinical sensitivity and specificity for the detection of fetal T31, T18, T13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA). However, no study compared the two approaches head-to-head in the same cohort of patients. The accuracy of gNIPT as a prenatal screening test has been mainly evaluated as a second-tier screening test to identify pregnancies at very low risk of fetal aneuploidies (T21, T18 and T13), thus avoiding invasive procedures. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing methods appear to be sensitive and highly specific for detection of fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in high-risk populations. There is paucity of data on the accuracy of gNIPT as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test in a population of unselected pregnant women. With respect to the replacement of invasive tests, the performance of gNIPT observed in this review is not sufficient to replace current invasive diagnostic tests.We conclude that given the current data on the performance of gNIPT, invasive fetal karyotyping is still the required diagnostic approach to confirm the presence of a chromosomal abnormality prior to making irreversible decisions relative to the pregnancy outcome. However, most of the gNIPT studies were prone to bias, especially in terms of the selection of participants.

Novel Algorithms for Improved Sensitivity in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma, which is a mixture of maternal DNA and a low percentage of fetal DNA, can detect fetal aneuploidies using massively parallel sequencing. Because of the low percentage of fetal DNA, methods with high sensitivity and precision are required. However, sequencing variation lowers sensitivity and hampers detection of trisomy samples. Therefore, we have developed three algorithms to improve sensitivity and specificity: the chi-squared-based variation reduction (χ²VR), the regression-based Z-score (RBZ) and the Match QC score. The χ²VR reduces variability in sequence read counts per chromosome between samples, the RBZ allows for more precise trisomy prediction, and the Match QC score shows if the control group used is representative for a specific sample. We compared the performance of χ²VR to that of existing variation reduction algorithms (peak and GC correction) and that of RBZ to trisomy prediction algorithms (standard Z-score, normalized chromosome value and median-absolute-deviation-based Z-score). χ²VR and the RBZ both reduce variability more than existing methods, and thereby increase the sensitivity of the NIPT analysis. We found the optimal combination of algorithms was to use both GC correction and χ²VR for pre-processing and to use RBZ as the trisomy prediction method.

Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part I-clinical impact

Objective

To evaluate the clinical impact of nationwide implementation of genome‐wide non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in pregnancies at increased risk for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (TRIDENT study).

Method

Women with elevated risk based on first trimester combined testing (FCT ≥ 1:200) or medical history, not advanced maternal age alone, were offered NIPT as contingent screening test, performed by Dutch University Medical laboratories. We analyzed uptake, test performance, redraw/failure rate, turn‐around time and pregnancy outcome.

Results

Between 1 April and 1 September 2014, 1413/23 232 (6%) women received a high‐risk FCT result. Of these, 1211 (85.7%) chose NIPT. One hundred seventy‐nine women had NIPT based on medical history. In total, 1386/1390 (99.7%) women received a result, 6 (0.4%) after redraw. Mean turn‐around time was 14 days. Follow‐up was available in 1376 (99.0%) pregnancies. NIPT correctly predicted 37/38 (97.4%) trisomies 21, 18 or 13 (29/30, 4/4 and 4/4 respectively); 5/1376 (0.4%) cases proved to be false positives: trisomies 21 (n = 2), 18 (n = 1) and 13 (n = 2). Estimated reduction in invasive testing was 62%.

Conclusion

Introduction of NIPT in the Dutch National healthcare‐funded Prenatal Screening Program resulted in high uptake and a vast reduction of invasive testing. Our study supports offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What's already known about this topic?

Non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 is mainly offered in a commercial setting.

Offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy leads to a reduction in invasive testing.

What does this study adds?

NIPT implemented as a contingent test under the umbrella of a national health authority‐supported fetal trisomy screening program facilitates optimal counseling with close to 100% follow‐up, results in 86% uptake and confirms a major reduction of invasive tests.

Validation of two-channel sequencing-by-synthesis for noninvasive prenatal testing of fetal whole and partial chromosome aberrations

OBJECTIVE

To validate Illumina's two-channel NextSeq 500 sequencing system for noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of fetal whole chromosome and partial aberrations.

METHODS

A total of 162 plasma samples, previously sequenced for NIPT on a SOLiD 5500xl platform, were sequenced on the NextSeq 500 using 75-bp single-end sequencing, followed by analysis using the WISECONDOR algorithm.

RESULTS

For whole chromosome aneuploidy detection, all samples were classified correctly (in total 3× T13, 3× T18, 8× T21 and 145× euploid). Three partial aberrations (36-Mb terminal loss of 5p, 14-Mb gain on 18p and 33-Mb terminal loss of 13q) were also correctly identified. Fetal fractions in 34 male samples sequenced on both the SOLiD 5500xl and NextSeq 500 platform showed no significant difference. To test robustness, two sample sets, containing both euploid and aneuploid samples, were sequenced on different NextSeq 500 machines, revealing identical results. With unchanged laboratory flow, the NIPT turnaround time could be reduced from 15-16 calendar days to 7-8 calendar days, after switching from the SOLiD 5500xl to the NextSeq 500 platform.

CONCLUSIONS

The NextSeq 500 platform can be used for NIPT to detect both whole and partial chromosome aberrations. It has fast turnaround times and is suitable for mid-sized laboratories.

Non-invasive prenatal testing using massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA: from molecular karyotyping to fetal whole-genome sequencing

The discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma in 1997 has stimulated a rapid development of non-invasive prenatal testing. The recent advent of massively parallel sequencing has allowed the analysis of circulating cell-free fetal DNA to be performed with unprecedented sensitivity and precision. Fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 are now robustly detectable in maternal plasma and such analyses have been available clinically since 2011. Fetal genome-wide molecular karyotyping and whole-genome sequencing have now been demonstrated in a number of proof-of-concept studies. Genome-wide and targeted sequencing of maternal plasma has been shown to allow the non-invasive prenatal testing of β-thalassaemia and can potentially be generalized to other monogenic diseases. It is thus expected that plasma DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing will play an increasingly important role in future obstetric care. It is thus timely and important that the ethical, social and legal issues of non-invasive prenatal testing be discussed actively by all parties involved in prenatal care.