Cell-free DNA fetal fraction in twin gestations in single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening.
Journal
Prenatal diagnosis
ISSN: 1097-0223
Titre abrégé: Prenat Diagn
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8106540
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
11
07
2019
revised:
19
10
2019
accepted:
26
10
2019
pubmed:
12
11
2019
medline:
9
2
2021
entrez:
12
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The performance of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies is dependent on the amount of placentally derived cell-free DNA, the "fetal fraction (FF)," present in maternal plasma. We report FF values in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) pregnancies. We reviewed FF in pregnancies at 10 to 20 completed weeks gestational age based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based NIPS where zygosity was routinely established in twin pregnancies. The cohort included 121 446 (96.3%) singleton, 1454 (1.2%) MZ, and 3161 (2.5%) DZ pregnancies. For DZ twins, individual FFs were measured. Combined FF for DZ and MZ fetuses were 35% and 26% greater than singletons, respectively. The individual FF contributions from each fetus in DZ twins were, on average, 32% less than singletons. FF in DZ twin pairs were moderately correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient.66). When a threshold of 2.8% FF was applied to define uninterpretable results, 1.7% (2102/121 446) of singletons, 0.8% (11/1454) of MZ pairs, and 5.6% (178/3161) of DZ pairs were uninterpretable. For optimal aneuploidy NIPS in twin pregnancies, zygosity should be established and in DZ twins FF for both fetuses should be determined to identify those cases where results can be reliably interpreted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31711265
doi: 10.1002/pd.5609
pmc: PMC7027570
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179-184Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):73-79
pubmed: 30014528
Hum Reprod. 2018 Apr 1;33(4):572-578
pubmed: 29462319
BJOG. 2014 Jun;121(7):809-19; discussion 820
pubmed: 24495335
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;47(6):705-11
pubmed: 26970114
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Jan;40(2):179-184
pubmed: 31711265
J Clin Med. 2019 Jun 28;8(7):
pubmed: 31261782
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;35(1):1-6
pubmed: 24335155
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Aug;32(8):730-4
pubmed: 22585317
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;35(3):199-203
pubmed: 24356438
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Nov;37(11):1125-1129
pubmed: 28881030
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;211(5):527.e1-527.e17
pubmed: 25111587
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 2;379(5):464-473
pubmed: 30067923
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;128(5):1127-1133
pubmed: 27741202
Nature. 2017 Oct 11;550(7675):179-181
pubmed: 29022931
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016;40(3):219-223
pubmed: 27028530
Hum Reprod. 2006 Jun;21(6):1531-2
pubmed: 16497698
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;53(6):804-809
pubmed: 30977206