» Articles » PMID: 32306377

Nuchal Translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an Indication for NIPT or Microarray? Cohort Analysis and Literature Review

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2020 Apr 20
PMID 32306377
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Material And Methods: 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.

Results: 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).

Conclusions: 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.

Citing Articles

How Useful is Nuchal Translucency in Detecting Chromosomal Abnormalities Missed by Genome-Wide NIPT and What Measurement Threshold Should Be Used?.

Han M, Ferreira A, Elhindi J, McLennan A, Scott F Prenat Diagn. 2025; 45(2):147-154.

PMID: 39754320 PMC: 11790515. DOI: 10.1002/pd.6742.


Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) Results among Patients Referred to Invasive Prenatal Testing after First-Trimester Screening: A Comprehensive Cohort Study.

Wojtowicz A, Kowalczyk K, Szewczyk K, Madetko-Talowska A, Wojtowicz W, Huras H Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(19).

PMID: 39410589 PMC: 11475562. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14192186.


Cytogenetically Balanced Reciprocal Translocation Could Hide Molecular Genomic Unbalances: Implications for Foetal Phenotype Correlation.

Villa N, Redaelli S, Farina S, Sala E, Crosti F, Cozzolino S Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(16).

PMID: 39202220 PMC: 11353226. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14161732.


Advancing fetal diagnosis and prognostication using comprehensive prenatal phenotyping and genetic testing.

Fortin O, Mulkey S, Fraser J Pediatr Res. 2024; .

PMID: 38937640 DOI: 10.1038/s41390-024-03343-9.


Is Nuchal Translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an Indication for cfDNA Testing or Microarray? - A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study.

Rybak-Krzyszkowska M, Madetko-Talowska A, Szewczyk K, Bik-Multanowski M, Sakowicz A, Stejskal D Fetal Diagn Ther. 2024; 51(5):453-462.

PMID: 38815555 PMC: 11446333. DOI: 10.1159/000539463.


References
1.
DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

2.
Maya I, Yacobson S, Kahana S, Yeshaya J, Tenne T, Agmon-Fishman I . Cut-off value of nuchal translucency as indication for chromosomal microarray analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50(3):332-335. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17421. View

3.
Nicolaides K, Azar G, Byrne D, Mansur C, Marks K . Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ. 1992; 304(6831):867-9. PMC: 1882788. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.304.6831.867. View

4.
Salomon L, Sotiriadis A, Wulff C, Odibo A, Akolekar R . Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 54(4):442-451. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20353. View

5.
Srebniak M, Joosten M, Knapen M, Arends L, Polak M, van Veen S . Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 51(4):445-452. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17533. View