Nuchal translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an indication for NIPT or microarray? Cohort analysis and literature review.


Journal

Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2020
Historique:
received: 21 10 2019
revised: 13 04 2020
accepted: 16 04 2020
pubmed: 20 4 2020
medline: 21 10 2020
entrez: 20 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Currently fetal nuchal translucency (NT) ≥3.5 mm is an indication for invasive testing often followed by chromosomal microarray. The aim of this study was to assess the risks for chromosomal aberrations in fetuses with an NT 3.0-3.4 mm, to determine whether invasive prenatal testing would be relevant in these cases and to assess the residual risks in fetuses with normal non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) results. A retrospective study and meta-analysis of literature cases with NT between 3.0 and 3.4 mm and 2 cohorts of pregnant women referred for invasive testing and chromosomal microarray was performed: Rotterdam region (with a risk >1:200 and NT between 3.0 and 3.4 mm) tested in the period July 2012 to June 2019 and Central Denmark region (with a risk >1:300 and NT between 3.0 and 3.4 mm) tested between September 2015 and December 2018. A total of 522 fetuses were referred for invasive testing and chromosomal microarray. Meta-analysis indicated that in 1:7.4 (13.5% [95% CI 8.2%-21.5%]) fetuses a chromosomal aberration was diagnosed. Of these aberrant cases, 47/68 (69%) involved trisomy 21, 18, and 13 and would potentially be detected by all NIPT approaches. The residual risk for missing a (sub)microscopic chromosome aberration depends on the NIPT approach and is highest if NIPT was performed only for common trisomies-1:21 (4.8% [95% CI 3.2%-7.3%]). However, it may be substantially lowered if a genome-wide 10-Mb resolution NIPT test was offered (~1:464). Based on these data, we suggest that the NT cut-off for invasive testing could be 3.0 mm (instead of 3.5 mm) because of the high risk of 1:7.4 for a chromosomal aberration. If women were offered NIPT first, there would be a significant diagnostic delay because all abnormal NIPT results need to be confirmed by diagnostic testing. If the woman had already received a normal NIPT result, the residual risk of 1:21 to 1:464 for chromosome aberrations other than common trisomies, dependent on the NIPT approach, should be raised. If a pregnant woman declines invasive testing, but still wants a test with a broader coverage of clinically significant conditions then the genome-wide >10-Mb resolution NIPT test, which detects most aberrations, could be proposed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32306377
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13877
pmc: PMC7318216
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

765-774

Informations de copyright

© 2020 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic.

Références

Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;50(3):332-335
pubmed: 28133835
BMJ. 1992 Apr 4;304(6831):867-9
pubmed: 1392745
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;54(4):442-451
pubmed: 31124209
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr;51(4):445-452
pubmed: 28556491
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Sep;33(9):856-62
pubmed: 23613307
Genet Med. 2016 Oct;18(10):1056-65
pubmed: 27467454
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Jan;40(2):197-205
pubmed: 31697852
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Dec 5;105(6):1091-1101
pubmed: 31708118
Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Sep;84(3):420-3
pubmed: 8058241
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jun;99(6):765-774
pubmed: 32306377
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):815-816
pubmed: 28573775
Mol Cytogenet. 2016 Sep 07;9(1):69
pubmed: 27610202
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jan;107(1):6-10
pubmed: 16394033
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;45(1):95-100
pubmed: 25393210
Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 Jul;22(7):856-8
pubmed: 24193341
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;38(3):314-9
pubmed: 21400624
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;50(3):302-314
pubmed: 28397325
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 15;11(1):e0146794
pubmed: 26771677
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Jun;37(6):527-539
pubmed: 28382695
Nat Genet. 2010 Mar;42(3):192-3
pubmed: 20179732
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;43(3):265-71
pubmed: 24375770
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 May;33(10):1749-1754
pubmed: 30688128
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr;51(4):480-486
pubmed: 28608362
Lancet. 1998 Aug 1;352(9125):343-6
pubmed: 9717920
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jun;99(6):722-730
pubmed: 32176318
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Dec;36(12):1083-1090
pubmed: 27750376
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Sep;101(9):782-6
pubmed: 7947527
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 6;367(23):2175-84
pubmed: 23215555
Genet Med. 2013 Jun;15(6):478-81
pubmed: 23258348
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1321-31
pubmed: 22970919
Hum Mutat. 2017 Jul;38(7):880-888
pubmed: 28409863
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Dec;36(12):1091-1098
pubmed: 27739584
Hum Mutat. 2013 Sep;34(9):1298-303
pubmed: 23674485
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Jan 22;:1-6
pubmed: 30669906
Hum Mutat. 2015 Mar;36(3):319-26
pubmed: 25504762
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jul;30(1):11-8
pubmed: 17559183
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;192(4):1005-21
pubmed: 15846173
BJOG. 2017 Jan;124(1):32-46
pubmed: 27245374
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Dec;46(6):650-8
pubmed: 25900824
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38(4):254-61
pubmed: 25925597

Auteurs

Olav B Petersen (OB)

Center for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Eric Smith (E)

Center for Prenatal Ultrasound Screening BovenMaas, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Diane Van Opstal (D)

Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Marike Polak (M)

Department of Psychology, Education & Child Studies (DPECS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Maarten F C M Knapen (MFCM)

Department of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Karin E M Diderich (KEM)

Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Caterina M Bilardo (CM)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Lidia R Arends (LR)

Department of Psychology, Education & Child Studies (DPECS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Ida Vogel (I)

Center for Fetal Diagnostics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department for Clinical Genetics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Malgorzata I Srebniak (MI)

Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH