Expanded noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy and copy number variations and parental willingness for invasive diagnosis in a cohort of 18,516 cases.
Common trisomies
Copy number variations
Expanded noninvasive prenatal test
Rare autosomal aneuploidies
Sex chromosomal aneuploidies
Journal
BMC medical genomics
ISSN: 1755-8794
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101319628
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 04 2021
14 04 2021
Historique:
received:
02
03
2021
accepted:
01
04
2021
entrez:
15
4
2021
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
21
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been wildly used to screen for common aneuplodies. In recent years, the test has been expanded to detect rare autosomal aneuploidies (RATs) and copy number variations (CNVs). This study was performed to investigate the performance of expanded noninvasive prenatal testing (expanded NIPT) in screening for common trisomies, sex chromosomal aneuploidies (SCAs), rare autosomal aneuploidies (RATs), and copy number variations (CNVs) and parental willingness for invasive prenatal diagnosis in a Chinese prenatal diagnosis center. A total of 24,702 pregnant women were retrospectively analyzed at the Women and Children's Hospital from January 2013 to April 2019, among which expanded NIPT had been successfully conducted in 24,702 pregnant women. The high-risk expanded NIPT results were validated by karyotype analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis. All the tested pregnant women were followed up for pregnancy outcomes. Of the 24,702 cases, successful follow-up was conducted in 98.77% (401/446) of cases with common trisomies and SCAs, 91.95% (80/87) of RAT and CNV cases, and 76.25% (18,429/24,169) of cases with low-risk screening results. The sensitivity of expanded NIPT was 100% (95% confidence interval[CI], 97.38-100%), 96.67%(95%CI, 82.78-99.92%), and 100%(95%CI, 66.37-100.00%), and the specificity was 99.92%(95%CI, 99.87-99.96%), 99.96%(95%CI, 99.91-99.98%), and 99.88% (95%CI, 99.82-99.93%) for the detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13, respectively. Expanded NIPT detected 45,X, 47,XXX, 47,XXY, XYY syndrome, RATs, and CNVs with positive predictive values of 25.49%, 75%, 94.12%, 76.19%, 6.45%, and 50%, respectively. The women carrying fetuses with Trisomy 21/Trisomy 18/Trisomy 13 underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis and terminated their pregnancies at higher rates than those at high risk for SCAs, RATs, and CNVs. Our study demonstrates that the expanded NIPT detects fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13 with high sensitivity and specificity. The accuracy of detecting SCAs, RATs, and CNVs is still relatively poor and needs to be improved. With a high-risk expanded NIPT result, the women at high risk for common trisomies are more likely to undergo invasive prenatal diagnosis procedures and terminate their pregnancies than those with unusual chromosome abnormalities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been wildly used to screen for common aneuplodies. In recent years, the test has been expanded to detect rare autosomal aneuploidies (RATs) and copy number variations (CNVs). This study was performed to investigate the performance of expanded noninvasive prenatal testing (expanded NIPT) in screening for common trisomies, sex chromosomal aneuploidies (SCAs), rare autosomal aneuploidies (RATs), and copy number variations (CNVs) and parental willingness for invasive prenatal diagnosis in a Chinese prenatal diagnosis center.
METHODS
A total of 24,702 pregnant women were retrospectively analyzed at the Women and Children's Hospital from January 2013 to April 2019, among which expanded NIPT had been successfully conducted in 24,702 pregnant women. The high-risk expanded NIPT results were validated by karyotype analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis. All the tested pregnant women were followed up for pregnancy outcomes.
RESULTS
Of the 24,702 cases, successful follow-up was conducted in 98.77% (401/446) of cases with common trisomies and SCAs, 91.95% (80/87) of RAT and CNV cases, and 76.25% (18,429/24,169) of cases with low-risk screening results. The sensitivity of expanded NIPT was 100% (95% confidence interval[CI], 97.38-100%), 96.67%(95%CI, 82.78-99.92%), and 100%(95%CI, 66.37-100.00%), and the specificity was 99.92%(95%CI, 99.87-99.96%), 99.96%(95%CI, 99.91-99.98%), and 99.88% (95%CI, 99.82-99.93%) for the detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13, respectively. Expanded NIPT detected 45,X, 47,XXX, 47,XXY, XYY syndrome, RATs, and CNVs with positive predictive values of 25.49%, 75%, 94.12%, 76.19%, 6.45%, and 50%, respectively. The women carrying fetuses with Trisomy 21/Trisomy 18/Trisomy 13 underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis and terminated their pregnancies at higher rates than those at high risk for SCAs, RATs, and CNVs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrates that the expanded NIPT detects fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13 with high sensitivity and specificity. The accuracy of detecting SCAs, RATs, and CNVs is still relatively poor and needs to be improved. With a high-risk expanded NIPT result, the women at high risk for common trisomies are more likely to undergo invasive prenatal diagnosis procedures and terminate their pregnancies than those with unusual chromosome abnormalities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33853619
doi: 10.1186/s12920-021-00955-6
pii: 10.1186/s12920-021-00955-6
pmc: PMC8045328
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
106Références
Sci Rep. 2019 May 23;9(1):7767
pubmed: 31123326
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(14):317
pubmed: 31475187
Placenta. 2011 Sep;32(9):699-703
pubmed: 21733574
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 12;13(4):e0195905
pubmed: 29649318
BMC Med Genomics. 2012 Dec 01;5:57
pubmed: 23198897
Genet Med. 2014 Sep;16(9):681-7
pubmed: 24675675
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Dec 5;105(6):1091-1101
pubmed: 31708118
Genet Med. 2018 Apr;20(5):480-485
pubmed: 29121006
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;45(5):530-8
pubmed: 25598039
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;54(4):442-451
pubmed: 31124209
Sci Transl Med. 2017 Aug 30;9(405):
pubmed: 28855395
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;211(4):365.e1-12
pubmed: 24657131
JAMA. 2018 Aug 14;320(6):557-565
pubmed: 30120476
Prenat Diagn. 2014 May;34(5):496-9
pubmed: 24510887
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21791
pubmed: 21755002
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul;42(1):15-33
pubmed: 23765643
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 23;372(17):1639-45
pubmed: 25830323
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul;42(1):34-40
pubmed: 23744609
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jun;33(6):584-90
pubmed: 23592436
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr;51(4):429-433
pubmed: 29363829
J Int Med Res. 2017 Apr;45(2):621-630
pubmed: 28357876
BMJ. 2016 Jul 04;354:i3426
pubmed: 27378786
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Dec;32(13):1225-32
pubmed: 23138752
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jul;33(7):643-9
pubmed: 23712453
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;54(5):527-31
pubmed: 26522104
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;217(6):691.e1-691.e6
pubmed: 29032050
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jun;33(6):521-31
pubmed: 23686656
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jun;33(6):591-7
pubmed: 23592550