Nuchal translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an indication for NIPT or microarray? Cohort analysis and literature review.
microarray
microdeletion
non-invasive prenatal test
nuchal translucency
prenatal diagnosis
submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities
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
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
765-774Informations 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