» Articles » PMID: 31671482

Clinical Experience Across the Fetal-fraction Spectrum of a Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Approach with Low Test-failure Rate

Overview
Date 2019 Nov 1
PMID 31671482
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To describe our clinical experience across the entire range of fetal-fraction (FF) measurements of a non-invasive prenatal screen (NIPS) that uses whole- genome sequencing (WGS).

Methods: We analyzed retrospectively results from 58 105 singleton pregnancies that underwent NIPS on a customized WGS platform during an 8-month period and assessed clinical test performance for trisomy 21, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Pregnancy outcomes were sought for all screen-positive patients and for 18% of screen-negative patients. As differences in outcome-collection response rates could artificially impact test-performance calculations, we computed inferred sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values adjusted for ascertainment bias.

Results: The screening test yielded a result for 99.9% (n = 58 048) of patients, meaning that approximately 1 in 1000 patients received a test failure (i.e. test failure rate = 0.1%). Of pregnancies with a test result, 572 (1%) screened positive for one of the common aneuploidies (362 for trisomy 21, 142 for trisomy 18 and 68 for trisomy 13). Informative outcomes were received for 237 (41.4%) patients with a screen-positive result and 3258 (5.7%) of those with a screen-negative result. In the full cohort, inferred sensitivities for trisomy 21, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 were 99.7%, 96.8% and 94.3%, respectively, and PPVs were 93.1%, 85.2% and 48.4%, respectively. If a FF threshold of 4% had been employed to guard against false negatives, calculated sensitivities for the three aneuploidies would not have changed significantly, yet, importantly, the overall test-failure rate would have increased to 6.6% (n = 3829), impacting 1 in 15 women.

Conclusions: Our clinical experience demonstrates that a customized WGS-based NIPS without a FF threshold achieves high accuracy while maintaining a low test-failure rate of 0.1%. As such, alternative strategies to ensure high accuracy of detection of common aneuploidies in samples with low FF (such as redraw after test failure, redrawing at a later gestational age, risk scoring based on FF) are not necessary for this screening approach. © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Citing Articles

Non-Invasive prenatal testing with rolling circle amplification: Real-world clinical experience in a non-molecular laboratory.

Saidel M, Ananth U, Rose D, Farrell C J Clin Lab Anal. 2023; 37(6):e24870.

PMID: 36972484 PMC: 10156098. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24870.


A Critical Evaluation of Validation and Clinical Experience Studies in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and Monosomy X.

Demko Z, Prigmore B, Benn P J Clin Med. 2022; 11(16).

PMID: 36012999 PMC: 9410356. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164760.


The impact of HBB-related hemoglobinopathies carrier status on fetal fraction in noninvasive prenatal screening.

Putra M, Kaseniit K, Hicks M, Muzzey D, Hackney D Prenat Diagn. 2022; 42(4):524-529.

PMID: 35224763 PMC: 9311838. DOI: 10.1002/pd.6127.


Consequences of imprecision in fetal fraction estimation on performance of cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome.

Persson F, Cuckle H Prenat Diagn. 2022; 42(4):512-517.

PMID: 35220579 PMC: 9311738. DOI: 10.1002/pd.6126.


Lipid Metabolism Affects Fetal Fraction and Screen Failures in Non-invasive Prenatal Testing.

Cao J, Qiao L, Jin J, Zhang S, Chen P, Tang H Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 8:811385.

PMID: 35096900 PMC: 8790535. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.811385.


References
1.
Dar P, Curnow K, Gross S, Hall M, Stosic M, Demko Z . Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211(5):527.e1-527.e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.006. View

2.
Fairbrother G, Burigo J, Sharon T, Song K . Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 29(7):1160-4. PMC: 4776726. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1038703. View

3.
Richardson A, Raine-Fenning N, Deb S, Campbell B, Vedhara K . Anxiety associated with diagnostic uncertainty in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 50(2):247-254. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17214. View

4.
Artieri C, Haverty C, Evans E, Goldberg J, Haque I, Yaron Y . Noninvasive prenatal screening at low fetal fraction: comparing whole-genome sequencing and single-nucleotide polymorphism methods. Prenat Diagn. 2017; 37(5):482-490. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5036. View

5.
. Practice Bulletin No. 163: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127(5):e123-e137. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001406. View