Whole genome non-invasive prenatal testing in prenatal screening algorithm: clinical experience from 12,700 pregnancies.
Amniocentesis
Fetal aneuploidy
NIPT
Non-invasive prenatal testing
Prenatal screening
Rare autosomal trisomies
Trisomy 13
Trisomy 18
Trisomy 21
cfDNA
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2022
09 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
10
03
2022
accepted:
03
08
2022
entrez:
9
8
2022
pubmed:
10
8
2022
medline:
12
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A fast adoption of a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in clinical practice is a global tendency last years. Firstly, in Russia according a new regulation it was possible to perform a widescale testing of pregnant women in chromosomal abnormality risk. The aim of the study-to assess efficiency of using NIPT as a second-line first trimester screening test in Moscow. Based on the first trimester combined prenatal screening results 12,700 pregnant women were classified as a high-risk (cut-off ≥ 1:100) and an intermediate-risk (cut-off 1:101 - 1:2500) groups followed by whole genome NIPT. Women from high-risk group and those who had positive NIPT results from intermediate-risk group were considered for invasive prenatal diagnostic. 258 (2.0%) samples with positive NIPT results were detected including 126 cases of trisomy 21 (T21), 40 cases of T18, 12 cases of T13, 41 cases of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and 39 cases of rare autosomal aneuploidies (RAAs) and significant copy number variations (CNVs). Statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) were revealed for fetal fraction (FF) and both for some patient's (body mass index and weight) and fetus's (sex and high risk of aneuploidies) characteristics. NIPT showed as a high sensitivity as specificity for common trisomies and SCAs with an overall false positive rate 0.3%. NIPT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. As a second-line screening test it has shown a high efficiency in detecting fetus chromosomal anomalies as well as it could potentially lower the number of invasive procedures in pregnant women.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A fast adoption of a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in clinical practice is a global tendency last years. Firstly, in Russia according a new regulation it was possible to perform a widescale testing of pregnant women in chromosomal abnormality risk. The aim of the study-to assess efficiency of using NIPT as a second-line first trimester screening test in Moscow.
METHODS
METHODS
Based on the first trimester combined prenatal screening results 12,700 pregnant women were classified as a high-risk (cut-off ≥ 1:100) and an intermediate-risk (cut-off 1:101 - 1:2500) groups followed by whole genome NIPT. Women from high-risk group and those who had positive NIPT results from intermediate-risk group were considered for invasive prenatal diagnostic.
RESULTS
RESULTS
258 (2.0%) samples with positive NIPT results were detected including 126 cases of trisomy 21 (T21), 40 cases of T18, 12 cases of T13, 41 cases of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and 39 cases of rare autosomal aneuploidies (RAAs) and significant copy number variations (CNVs). Statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) were revealed for fetal fraction (FF) and both for some patient's (body mass index and weight) and fetus's (sex and high risk of aneuploidies) characteristics. NIPT showed as a high sensitivity as specificity for common trisomies and SCAs with an overall false positive rate 0.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
NIPT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. As a second-line screening test it has shown a high efficiency in detecting fetus chromosomal anomalies as well as it could potentially lower the number of invasive procedures in pregnant women.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35945516
doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04966-8
pii: 10.1186/s12884-022-04966-8
pmc: PMC9364619
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
633Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Jan;40(2):155-163
pubmed: 31821597
F1000Res. 2019 May 31;8:
pubmed: 31214330
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Oct;25(10):1856-9
pubmed: 22471583
Semin Perinatol. 2011 Aug;35(4):200-8
pubmed: 21798400
Genet Med. 2018 Nov;20(11):1312-1323
pubmed: 30514979
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Nov;39(8):1104-1111
pubmed: 31334677
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul;42(1):15-33
pubmed: 23765643
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;32(2):152-158
pubmed: 31977337
Pediatr Ann. 2018 May 1;47(5):e198-e203
pubmed: 29750287
Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk. 2015;(3):307-14
pubmed: 26495718
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;45(5):530-8
pubmed: 25598039
Mol Cytogenet. 2020 Mar 12;13:10
pubmed: 32190123
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Oct;38(11):841-848
pubmed: 30068017
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jul;33(7):662-6
pubmed: 23553731
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;216(4):413.e1-413.e9
pubmed: 28153663
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 14;11(7):e0159233
pubmed: 27415003
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;41(1):26-32
pubmed: 23108725
Am J Transl Res. 2019 Jul 15;11(7):4450-4459
pubmed: 31396348
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 18;6(1):e010002
pubmed: 26781507
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;211(4):365.e1-12
pubmed: 24657131
Clin Chim Acta. 2018 Nov;486:232-236
pubmed: 30114407
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Sep 19;17(1):670
pubmed: 28927451
BMJ Open. 2014 Nov 07;4(11):e005922
pubmed: 25380810
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Aug;35(8):816-22
pubmed: 26013964
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2020 Jun;8(6):e1232
pubmed: 32281746
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):45-52
pubmed: 26498918
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;55(3):379-84
pubmed: 27343319
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Apr 9;6(231):231fs15
pubmed: 24718856
Genet Med. 2016 Oct;18(10):1056-65
pubmed: 27467454
Clin Chem. 2014 Jan;60(1):78-87
pubmed: 24255077
BJOG. 2017 Jan;124(1):32-46
pubmed: 27245374
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 2;379(5):464-473
pubmed: 30067923
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):8-13
pubmed: 26643796
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Sep;38(10):755-764
pubmed: 29966040
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Dec 5;105(6):1091-1101
pubmed: 31708118
Eur J Med Genet. 2020 Sep;63(9):104001
pubmed: 32622960
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2016 Jun;172(2):123-7
pubmed: 27133782
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;59(1):16-20
pubmed: 32039788
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;217(6):691.e1-691.e6
pubmed: 29032050
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jun;33(6):521-31
pubmed: 23686656