Comprehensive genome-wide analysis of routine non-invasive test data allows cancer prediction: A single-center retrospective analysis of over 85,000 pregnancies.
Cancer detection
Clinical follow-up
Non-invasive prenatal testing
Journal
EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
24
11
2020
revised:
19
03
2021
accepted:
01
04
2021
entrez:
26
5
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
27
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Implausible false positive results in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) have been occasionally associated with the detection of occult maternal malignancies. Hence, there is a need for approaches allowing accurate prediction of whether the NIPT result is pointing to an underlying malignancy, as well as for organized programs ensuring efficient downstream clinical management of these cases. Using a data set of 88,294 NIPT performed at University Hospital Leuven (Belgium) between November 2013 and March 2020, we retrospectively evaluated the positive predictive value (PPV) of our NIPT approach for cancer detection. In this approach, whole-genome cell-free DNA (cfDNA) data from NIPT were scrutinized for the presence of (sub)chromosomal copy number alterations (CNAs) predictive for a malignancy, using an unbiased NIPT analysis pipeline coined GIPSeq. For suspected cases, the presence of a maternal cancer was evaluated via subsequent multidisciplinary clinical follow-up examinations. The cancer-specificity of the identified CNAs in cfDNA was assessed through genetic analyses of a tumor biopsy. Fifteen women without a cancer history were identified with a GIPSeq result suggestive of a malignant process. Their cfDNA profiles showed either genome-wide aberrations or a single trisomy 8. Upon clinical examinations, a solid or hematological cancer was identified in 4 and 7 cases, respectively. Three women were identified as having a clonal mosaicism. For one case no underlying condition was found. These numbers add to a PPV of 73%. Based on this experience, we presented a multidisciplinary care path for efficient clinical management of these cases. The presented approach for analysing NIPT results has a high PPV, yet unknown sensitivity, for detecting asymptomatic malignancies upon routine NIPT. Given the complexity of diagnosing a pregnant woman with cancer, clinical follow-up should occur in a well-designed multidisciplinary setting, such as via the care model that we presented here. This work was supported by Research Foundation Flanders and KU Leuven funding.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Implausible false positive results in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) have been occasionally associated with the detection of occult maternal malignancies. Hence, there is a need for approaches allowing accurate prediction of whether the NIPT result is pointing to an underlying malignancy, as well as for organized programs ensuring efficient downstream clinical management of these cases.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a data set of 88,294 NIPT performed at University Hospital Leuven (Belgium) between November 2013 and March 2020, we retrospectively evaluated the positive predictive value (PPV) of our NIPT approach for cancer detection. In this approach, whole-genome cell-free DNA (cfDNA) data from NIPT were scrutinized for the presence of (sub)chromosomal copy number alterations (CNAs) predictive for a malignancy, using an unbiased NIPT analysis pipeline coined GIPSeq. For suspected cases, the presence of a maternal cancer was evaluated via subsequent multidisciplinary clinical follow-up examinations. The cancer-specificity of the identified CNAs in cfDNA was assessed through genetic analyses of a tumor biopsy.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Fifteen women without a cancer history were identified with a GIPSeq result suggestive of a malignant process. Their cfDNA profiles showed either genome-wide aberrations or a single trisomy 8. Upon clinical examinations, a solid or hematological cancer was identified in 4 and 7 cases, respectively. Three women were identified as having a clonal mosaicism. For one case no underlying condition was found. These numbers add to a PPV of 73%. Based on this experience, we presented a multidisciplinary care path for efficient clinical management of these cases.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
The presented approach for analysing NIPT results has a high PPV, yet unknown sensitivity, for detecting asymptomatic malignancies upon routine NIPT. Given the complexity of diagnosing a pregnant woman with cancer, clinical follow-up should occur in a well-designed multidisciplinary setting, such as via the care model that we presented here.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
This work was supported by Research Foundation Flanders and KU Leuven funding.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34036251
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100856
pii: S2589-5370(21)00136-X
pmc: PMC8138727
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100856Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
EL reports personal fees from Springworks Therapeutics outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Nat Genet. 2012 May 06;44(6):642-50
pubmed: 22561516
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Jun;37(6):527-539
pubmed: 28382695
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Mar;19(3):337-346
pubmed: 29395867
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2019 Dec;58(12):828-838
pubmed: 30939217
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Dec;37(12):1257-1260
pubmed: 29023902
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Dec 5;105(6):1091-1101
pubmed: 31708118
Placenta. 2004 Apr;25 Suppl A:S93-S101
pubmed: 15033315
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;30(1):85-95
pubmed: 30371735
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;131(3):464-468
pubmed: 29420407
JAMA. 2015 Jul 14;314(2):162-9
pubmed: 26168314
Clin Case Rep. 2020 Jun 20;8(10):1924-1927
pubmed: 33088520
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 5;373(19):1824-34
pubmed: 26415085
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar 20;:
pubmed: 30898935
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010 Mar;11(3):220-8
pubmed: 20177397
Eur Radiol. 2018 May;28(5):1862-1874
pubmed: 29218610
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2017 Dec;1(4):302-310
pubmed: 30169185
Prenat Diagn. 2019 Nov;39(12):1162-1165
pubmed: 31393011
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Jan 18;:
pubmed: 30659032
Surg Oncol. 2011 Dec;20(4):e175-85
pubmed: 21733678
Prenat Diagn. 2019 Apr;39(5):339-343
pubmed: 30398677
Clin Genet. 2016 May;89(5):523-30
pubmed: 25867715
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jun;31(6):745-759
pubmed: 33506766
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 10;31(20):2532-9
pubmed: 23610117
Genet Med. 2021 Feb 9;:
pubmed: 33564150
Clin Chem. 2018 Feb;64(2):329-335
pubmed: 28982650
Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Oct;23(10):1286-93
pubmed: 25585704
Cell. 2016 Jan 14;164(1-2):57-68
pubmed: 26771485
Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2001 Oct 15;130(2):160-5
pubmed: 11675138
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Feb;37(2):126-132
pubmed: 27878832
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Mar;36(3):203-9
pubmed: 26785403
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 2;379(5):464-473
pubmed: 30067923
BMC Med. 2012 Aug 08;10:86
pubmed: 22873292
Pathol Biol (Paris). 2007 Feb;55(1):37-48
pubmed: 16697122
Genet Med. 2019 Oct;21(10):2293-2302
pubmed: 30976098
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Aug;46(8):1246-1254
pubmed: 32558079
Brief Bioinform. 2021 May 20;22(3):
pubmed: 32427285
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Sep;1(6):814-9
pubmed: 26355862
Clin Chem. 2020 Nov 1;66(11):1414-1423
pubmed: 33141904
Lancet Haematol. 2019 Nov;6(11):e551-e561
pubmed: 31564649