Is routine karyotyping required in prenatal samples with a molecular or metabolic referral?

As a routine, karyotyping of invasive prenatal samples is performed as an adjunct to referrals for DNA mutation detection and metabolic testing. We performed a retrospective study on 500 samples to assess the diagnostic value of this procedure. These samples included 454 (90.8%) chorionic villus (CV) and 46 (9.2%) amniocenteses specimens. For CV samples karyotyping was based on analyses of both short-term culture (STC) and long-term culture (LTC) cells. Overall, 19 (3.8%) abnormal karyotypes were denoted: four with a common aneuploidy (trisomy 21, 18 and 13), two with a sex chromosomal aneuploidy (Klinefelter syndrome), one with a sex chromosome mosaicism and twelve with various autosome mosaicisms. In four cases a second invasive test was performed because of an abnormal finding in the STC. Taken together, we conclude that STC and LTC karyotyping has resulted in a diagnostic yield of 19 (3.8%) abnormal cases, including 12 cases (2.4%) with an uncertain significance. From a diagnostic point of view, it is desirable to limit uncertain test results as secondary test findings. Therefore, we recommend a more targeted assay, such as e.g. QF-PCR, as a replacement of the STC and to provide parents the autonomy to choose between karyotyping and QF-PCR

Rapid whole exome sequencing in pregnancies to identify the underlying genetic cause in fetuses with congenital anomalies detected by ultrasound imaging

Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of trio-based rapid whole exome sequencing (rWES) in pregnancies of fetuses with a wide range of congenital anomalies detected by ultrasound imaging. Methods: In this observational study, we analyzed the first 54 cases referred to our laboratory for prenatal rWES to support clinical decision making, after the sonographic detection of fetal congenital anomalies. The most common identified congenital anomalies were skeletal dysplasia (n = 20), multiple major fetal congenital anomalies (n = 17) and intracerebral structural anomalies (n = 7). Results: A conclusive diagnosis was identified in 18 of the 54 cases (33%). Pathogenic variants were detected most often in fetuses with skeletal dysplasia (n = 11) followed by fetuses with multiple major fetal congenital anomalies (n = 4) and intracerebral structural anomalies (n = 3). A survey, completed by the physicians for 37 of 54 cases, indicated that the rWES results impacted clinical decision making in 68% of cases. Conclusions: These results suggest that rWES improves prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with congenital anomalies, and has an important impact on prenatal and peripartum parental and clinical decision making

Noninvasive Prenatal Test Results Indicative of Maternal Malignancies:A Nationwide Genetic and Clinical Follow-Up Study

PURPOSE: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy screening using cell-free DNA derived from maternal plasma can incidentally raise suspicion for cancer. Diagnostic routing after malignancy suspicious-NIPT faces many challenges. Here, we detail malignancy suspicious-NIPT cases, and describe the clinical characteristics, chromosomal aberrations, and diagnostic routing of the patients with a confirmed malignancy. Clinical lessons can be learned from our experience. METHODS: Patients with NIPT results indicative of a malignancy referred for tumor screening between April 2017 and April 2020 were retrospectively included from a Dutch nationwide NIPT implementation study, TRIDENT-2. NIPT profiles from patients with confirmed malignancies were reviewed, and the pattern of chromosomal aberrations related to tumor type was analyzed. We evaluated the diagnostic contribution of clinical and genetic examinations. RESULTS: Malignancy suspicious-NIPT results were reported in 0.03% after genome-wide NIPT, and malignancies confirmed in 16 patients (16/48, 33.3%). Multiple chromosomal aberrations were seen in 23 of 48 patients with genome-wide NIPT, and a malignancy was confirmed in 16 patients (16/23, 69.6%). After targeted NIPT, 0.005% malignancy suspicious-NIPT results were reported, in 2/3 patients a malignancy was confirmed. Different tumor types and stages were diagnosed, predominantly hematologic malignancies (12/18). NIPT data showed recurrent gains and losses in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphomas and classic Hodgkin lymphomas. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography were most informative in diagnosing the malignancy. CONCLUSION: In 231,896 pregnant women, a low percentage (0.02%) of NIPT results were assessed as indicative of a maternal malignancy. However, when multiple chromosomal aberrations were found, the risk of a confirmed malignancy was considerably high. Referral for extensive oncologic examination is recommended, and may be guided by tumor-specific hallmarks in the NIPT profile

Trial by Dutch Laboratories for Evaluation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing.:Part II - Women's Perspectives

Contains fulltext : 171863.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences and decision-making among high-risk pregnant women offered a choice between Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), invasive testing or no further testing. METHODS: Nationwide implementation study (TRIDENT) offering NIPT as contingent screening test for women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined testing (>1:200) or medical history. A questionnaire was completed after counseling assessing knowledge, attitudes and participation following the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. RESULTS: A total of 1091/1253 (87%) women completed the questionnaire. Of these, 1053 (96.5%) underwent NIPT, 37 (3.4%) invasive testing and 1 (0.1%) declined testing. 91.7% preferred NIPT because of test safety. Overall, 77.9% made an informed choice, 89.8% had sufficient knowledge and 90.5% had positive attitudes towards NIPT. Women with intermediate (odds ratio (OR) = 3.51[1.70-7.22], p < 0.001) or high educational level (OR = 4.36[2.22-8.54], p < 0.001) and women with adequate health literacy (OR = 2.60[1.36-4.95], p = 0.004) were more likely to make an informed choice. Informed choice was associated with less decisional conflict and less anxiety (p < 0.001). Intention to terminate the pregnancy for Down syndrome was higher among women undergoing invasive testing (86.5%) compared to those undergoing NIPT (58.4%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women had sufficient knowledge and made an informed choice. Continuous attention for counseling is required, especially for low-educated and less health-literate women. (c) 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Clinical impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing:Follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study

In the TRIDENT-2 study, all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (GW-NIPT) with a choice of receiving either full screening or screening solely for common trisomies. Previous data showed that GW-NIPT can reliably detect common trisomies in the general obstetric population and that this test can also detect other chromosomal abnormalities (additional findings). However, evidence regarding the clinical impact of screening for additional findings is lacking. Therefore, we present follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study to determine this clinical impact based on the laboratory and perinatal outcomes of cases with additional findings. Between April 2017 and April 2019, additional findings were detected in 402/110,739 pregnancies (0.36%). For 358 cases, the origin was proven to be either fetal (n = 79; 22.1%), (assumed) confined placental mosaicism (CPM) (n = 189; 52.8%), or maternal (n = 90; 25.1%). For the remaining 44 (10.9%), the origin of the aberration could not be determined. Most fetal chromosomal aberrations were pathogenic and associated with severe clinical phenotypes (61/79; 77.2%). For CPM cases, occurrence of pre-eclampsia (8.5% [16/189] vs 0.5% [754/159,924]; RR 18.5), and birth weigh

A generalized invariant imbedding equation II

Research into fetal development and medicin

Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing.:Part I-clinical impact

textabstractObjective: To evaluate the clinical impact of nationwide implementation of genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in pregnancies at increased risk for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (TRIDENT study). Method: Women with elevated risk based on first trimester combined testing (FCT ≥ 1:200) or medical history, not advanced maternal age alone, were offered NIPT as contingent screening test, performed by Dutch University Medical laboratories. We analyzed uptake, test performance, redraw/failure rate, turn-around time and pregnancy outcome. Results: Between 1 April and 1 September 2014, 1413/23 232 (6%) women received a high-risk FCT result. Of these, 1211 (85.7%) chose NIPT. One hundred seventy-nine women had NIPT based on medical history. In total, 1386/1390 (99.7%) women received a result, 6 (0.4%) after redraw. Mean turn-around time was 14 days. Follow-up was available in 1376 (99.0%) pregnancies. NIPT correctly predicted 37/38 (97.4%) trisomies 21, 18 or 13 (29/30, 4/4 and 4/4 respectively); 5/1376 (0.4%) cases proved to be false positives: trisomies 21 (n = 2), 18 (n = 1) and 13 (n = 2). Estimated reduction in invasive testing was 62%. Conclusion: Introduction of NIPT in the Dutch National healthcare-funded Prenatal Screening Program resulted in high uptake and a vast reduction of invasive testing. Our study supports offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

In case you missed it: the Prenatal Diagnosis editors bring you the most significant advances of 2014

status: publishe

The clinical utility of non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as an alternative to invasive diagnostic prenatal testing for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was performed of 251 single and multiple pregnancies at high risk for fetal chromosomal abnormalities based on ultrasonographic examination, where NIPT was performed as first-tier genetic test. NIPT was performed by massively parallel sequencing of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma, allowing genome-wide detection of whole-chromosome as well as partial autosomal aneuploidies, as currently in the Dutch laboratories, sex chromosomes are not analysed. RESULTS: NIPT was performed at a median gestational age of 20 weeks, indicated by the presence of multiple congenital anomalies (n=13), isolated structural anomalies (n=57), increased nuchal translucency ≥ 3.5 mm (n=58), softmarkers (n=73), growth restriction (n=40), and other anomalies (n=10). NIPT results were normal in 224 (89.2%), inconclusive in one (0.4%) and abnormal in 26 pregnancies (10.4%). Most genetic aberrations detected were common whole-chromosome aneuploidies: trisomy 21 (n=13), trisomy 18 (n=6), and trisomy 13 (n=3). There were four other abnormal NIPT results, of which one was highly suspect for confined placental mosaicism and one was of maternal origin. If NIPT results were normal, ultrasonographic follow-up or newborn examinations indicated diagnostic genetic testing in 33 pregnancies (14.7% of 224). Clinically relevant genetic aberrations were revealed in seven cases (3.1% of 224), of which two were whole-chromosome aneuploidies: trisomy 13, and monosomy X. As sex chromosomal aberrations are not included in the analysis, the last cannot be considered a false negative result. Other discordant findings were subchromosomal (<20 Mb, n=2) and monogenic aberrations (n=3). CONCLUSION: NIPT should not be recommended for the genetic evaluation of the aetiology of ultrasound anomalies, as both resolution and sensitivity, or negative predictive value, are inferior to those of conventional karyotyping and microarray analysis. Nonetheless, some pregnant women consider NIPT to be an acceptable alternative to invasive diagnostic testing