Cell-free DNA-based prenatal screening via rolling circle amplification: Identifying and resolving analytic issues

Objective: A rolling circle amplification (RCA) based commercial methodology using cell-free (cf)DNA to screen for common trisomies became available in 2018. Relevant publications documented high detection but with a higher than expected 1% false positive rate. Preliminary evidence suggested assay variability was an issue. A multi-center collaboration was created to explore this further and examine whether subsequent manufacturer changes were effective. Methods: Three academic (four devices) and two commercial (two devices) laboratories provided run date, chromosome 21, 18, and 13 run-specific standard deviations, number of samples run, and reagent lot identifications. Temporal trends and between-site/device consistency were explored. Proportions of run standard deviations exceeding pre-specified caps of 0.4%, 0.4% and 0.6% were computed. Results: Overall, 661 RCA runs between April 2019 and July 30, 2022 tested 39,756 samples. In the first 24, subsequent 9, and final 7 months, proportions of capped chromosome 21 runs dropped from 39% to 22% to 6.0%; for chromosome 18, rates were 76%, 36%, and 4.0%. Few chromosome 13 runs were capped using the original 0.60%, but capping at 0.50%, rates were 28%, 16%, and 7.6%. Final rates occurred after reformulated reagents and imaging software modifications were fully implemented across all devices. Revised detection and false positive rates are estimated at 98.4% and 0.3%, respectively. After repeat testing, failure rates may be as low as 0.3%. Conclusion: Current RCA-based screening performance estimates are equivalent to those reported for other methods, but with a lower test failure rate after repeat testing.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

TSH and FT4 Reference Interval Recommendations and Prevalence of Gestational Thyroid Dysfunction: Quantification of Current Diagnostic Approaches

Context: Guidelines recommend use of population- and trimester-specific thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) reference intervals (RIs) in pregnancy. Since these are often unavailable, clinicians frequently rely on alternative diagnostic strategies. We sought to quantify the diagnostic consequences of current recommendations. Methods: We included cohorts participating in the Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy. Different approaches were used to define RIs: a TSH fixed upper limit of 4.0 mU/L (fixed limit approach), a fixed subtraction from the upper limit for TSH of 0.5 mU/L (subtraction approach) and using nonpregnancy RIs. Outcome measures were sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) of women for whom levothyroxine treatment was indicated and those for whom treatment would be considered according to international guidelines. Results: The study population comprised 52 496 participants from 18 cohorts. Compared with the use of trimester-specific RIs, alternative approaches had a low sensitivity (0.63-0.82) and high FDR (0.11-0.35) to detect women with a treatment indication or consideration. Sensitivity and FDR to detect a treatment indication in the first trimester were similar between the fixed limit, subtraction, and nonpregnancy approach (0.77-0.11 vs 0.74-0.16 vs 0.60-0.11). The diagnostic performance to detect overt hypothyroidism, isolated hypothyroxinemia, and (sub)clinical hyperthyroidism mainly varied between FT4 RI approaches, while the diagnostic performance to detect subclinical hypothyroidism varied between the applied TSH RI approaches. Conclusion: Alternative approaches to define RIs for TSH and FT4 in pregnancy result in considerable overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis compared with population- and trimester-specific RIs. Additional strategies need to be explored to optimize identification of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy.SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe