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

The author describes the results and implications of a study on noninvasive prenatal test results that indicate maternal malignancies.

Disparities in integrating non-invasive prenatal testing into antenatal healthcare in Australia: a survey of healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been clinically available in Australia on a user-pays basis since 2012. There are numerous providers, with available tests ranging from targeted NIPT (only trisomies 21, 18, and 13 +/- sex chromosome aneuploidy) to genome-wide NIPT. While NIPT is being implemented in the public health care systems of other countries, in Australia, the implementation of NIPT has proceeded without public funding. The aim of this study was to investigate how NIPT has been integrated into antenatal care across Australia and reveal the successes and challenges in its implementation in this context. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted from September to October 2022. Invitations to participate were sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the provision of NIPT in Australia through professional society mailing lists and networks. Participants were asked questions on their knowledge of NIPT, delivery of NIPT, and post-test management of results. RESULTS: A total of 475 HCPs responded, comprising 232 (48.8%) obstetricians, 167 (35.2%) general practitioners, 32 (6.7%) midwives, and 44 (9.3%) genetic specialists. NIPT was most commonly offered as a first-tier test, with most HCPs (n = 279; 60.3%) offering it to patients as a choice between NIPT and combined first-trimester screening. Fifty-three percent (n = 245) of respondents always offered patients a choice between NIPT for the common autosomal trisomies and expanded (including genome-wide) NIPT. This choice was understood as supporting patient autonomy and informed consent. Cost was seen as a major barrier to access to NIPT, for both targeted and expanded tests. Equitable access, increasing time demands on HCPs, and staying up to date with advances were frequently reported as major challenges in delivering NIPT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate substantial variation in the clinical implementation of NIPT in Australia, including in the offers of expanded screening options. After a decade of clinical use, Australian clinicians still report ongoing challenges in the clinical and equitable provision of NIPT.

Numbers of prenatal cell-free DNA screens performed: Results of a 2022 CAP exercise.

OBJECTIVE: Determine current analytical methods and number of cell-free (cf) DNA prenatal screening tests performed for common trisomies. METHODS: The College of American Pathologists 2022-B Noninvasive Prenatal Testing exercise was distributed in December 2022 to 93 participants in 22 countries. Supplemental questions included the number of tests performed in a recent month and the proportion of samples originating outside the United States (US). RESULTS: Eighty-three participants from three continents returned results; 74 (89%) were suitable for the analyses. Nine manufacturer/platform combinations were identified, most commonly Illumina/Nextseq (55%). The most common methodology was whole genome sequencing (76%). Annualized cfDNA tests were 2.80 million, with Asian, European and North American participants representing 10.6%, 6.5% and 82.9% of tests, respectively. When restricted to US in-country tests, the annualized rate was 2.18 million, with four of 20 participants testing 79.2%. Among 73 respondents, 63 (86%) were for-profit, eight (11%) were non-profit academic or government supported and the remaining two included hospital-based and private non-profit. Eighteen (25%) supported relevant academic training. CONCLUSION: In 2011, screening for common trisomies was based on serum/ultrasound markers with an estimated 2.96 million US pregnancies screened in 131 laboratories. In 2022, cfDNA-based screening was offered by 20 laboratories testing 2.18 million US pregnancies.

High positive predictive value 22q11.2 microdeletion screening by prenatal cell-free DNA testing that incorporates fetal fraction amplification.

OBJECTIVE: 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (DS) is a serious condition with a range of features. The small microdeletion causing 22q11.2DS makes it technically challenging to detect using standard prenatal cfDNA screening. Here, we assess 22q11.2 microdeletion clinical performance by a prenatal cfDNA screen that incorporates fetal fraction (FF) amplification. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of patients who received Prequel (Myriad Genetics, Inc.), a prenatal cfDNA screening that incorporates FF amplification, and met additional eligibility criteria. Pregnancy outcomes were obtained via a routine process for continuous quality improvement. Samples with diagnostic testing results were used to calculate positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: 379,428 patients met study eligibility criteria, 76 of whom were screen-positive for a de novo 22q11.2 microdeletion. 22 (29.7%) had diagnostic testing results available, and all 22 cases were confirmed as true positives, for a PPV of 100% (95% CI 84.6%-100%). This performance was based on cases that ranged broadly across FF (5.9%-41.1%, mean 23.0%), body mass index (22.3-44.8, mean 29.9), and gestational age at testing (10.0w-34.6w, median 12.7w). Ultrasound findings in screen-positive pregnancies were consistent with those known to be associated with 22q11.2DS. CONCLUSION: 22q11.2 microdeletion screening that incorporates FF amplification demonstrated high PPV across both general and high-risk population cohorts.

Test performance and clinical utility of expanded non-invasive prenatal test: Experience on 71,883 unselected routine cases from one single center.

OBJECTIVE: The balance between benefits and risks of discordant outcomes makes the Genome-Wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (GW-NIPT) controversial. This study aims to evaluate performance and clinical utility in a wide cohort of unselected clinical cases from a single center when a standardized protocol is applied and integrated with a secondary algorithm for data interpretation. METHOD: In 2 years, over 70,000 pregnant patients underwent GW-NIPT for fetal common trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal aneuploidies, segmental abnormalities (CNVs ≥ 7 Mb) and microdeletions (CNVs < 7 Mb). All samples were uniformly processed with Veriseq NIPT Solution v2 and analyzed using all data metrics along with a home-made algorithm for sequencing data analysis. Results were retrospectively reviewed for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 71,883 eligible cases including twin pregnancies, 1011 (1.4%) received a positive result and 781 were confirmed by invasive prenatal diagnosis. Clinical sensitivity ranged from 99.65% for common trisomy (T21, T18, T13) to 83.33% for microdeletions, while specificity remained high (99.98%) for each class of fetal abnormalities detected. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating a standardized protocol with an internal algorithm allowed discordant results to be reduced, yielding high accuracy. Observed reliability in detecting genome-wide chromosomal conditions reinforced the expanded NIPT utility in clinical practice.

Performance of cell-free DNA testing for common fetal trisomies in triplet pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: In singleton pregnancies, the use of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis as a screening test for common fetal trisomies has spread worldwide though we still lack sufficient data for its use in triplet pregnancies. The objective of this study is to assess the performance of cfDNA testing in detecting fetal aneuploidies in triplet pregnancies as a first-tier test. METHOD: We performed a retrospective cohort study including data from pregnant women with a triplet pregnancy who underwent cfDNA testing between May 1, 2017, and January 15, 2020. cfDNA was obtained by massive parallel sequencing (VeriSeq NIPT solution; Illumina®). The objectives of the study were to assess the diagnostic performance of cfDNA testing for trisomy 21 (T21) (primary outcome), trisomy 18 (T18) and 13 (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: During the study period, cfDNA testing was performed in 255 women with triplet pregnancy, of which 165 (64.7%) had a neonatal outcome available. Three tests were positive for T21, one of which was confirmed by an antenatal karyotype, and the other was confirmed at birth. The third case did not undergo an invasive procedure and was not confirmed at birth (false positive). In one case, cfDNA testing was positive for T18 and was confirmed by an antenatal karyotype. There were no cases of trisomy 13 in the cohort. The no-call rate was 2.4% at first sampling. Fifty-eight (22.7%) women had embryo reduction, which in 40 (69%) of whom was performed after the cfDNA test result. CONCLUSION: cfDNA testing could be offered as primary screening for main fetal aneuploidies in triplet pregnancies after provision of appropriate patient information.

Use of cell-free non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies affected by placental mosaicism.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cell-free non-invasive prenatal testing (cfNIPT) in pregnancies affected by mosaicism. METHOD: We assessed paired cfNIPT and chorionic villus sample (CVS) results from the same pregnancies in a case series of mosaicism detected in Central and North Denmark Regions from April 2014 to September 2018. Indications for the clinically obtained CVS, pregnancy markers and outcome were retrieved from The Danish Fetal Medicine Database. RESULTS: Mosaicisms in CVS involved common aneuploidy, n = 14; sex chromosomal aneuploidies, n = 14; rare autosomal trisomies (RATs), n = 16 and copy number variants (CNVs) >5Mb, n = 9. Overall, 24/53 (45.3%; CI 95%: 31.8%-59.4%) of cases with mosaicism were detected by cfNIPT; highest for RATs (56%) and lowest for CNVs (22%). CfNIPT more commonly detected high-level than low-level mosaic cases (p = 0.000). CfNIPT detected 7/16 (43.8%; CI 95%: 21%-69%) clinically significant mosaic cases, either true fetal mosaicism or confined placental mosaicisms with adverse pregnancy outcome. There was a trend toward a higher risk for adverse outcome in pregnancies where mosaicism was detected by cfNIPT compared to pregnancies where mosaicism was not detected by cfNIPT (p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: CfNIPT has a low detection rate of mosaicism, including pregnancies with clinically significant mosaicism. However, abnormal cfNIPT results may be a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcomes.