Overview of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for the Detection of Fetal Chromosome Abnormalities; Differences in Laboratory Methods and Scope of Testing.

Although nearly all noninvasive prenatal testing is currently based on analyzing circulating maternal cell-free DNA, the technical methods usedvary considerably. We review the different methods. Based on validation trials and clinical experience, there are mostly relatively small differences in screening performance for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in singleton pregnancies. Recent reports show low no-call rates for all methods, diminishing its importance when choosing a laboratory. However, method can be an important consideration for twin pregnancies, screening for sex chromosome abnormalities, microdeletion syndromes, triploidy, molar pregnancies, rare autosomal trisomies, and segmental imbalances, and detecting maternal chromosome abnormalities.

Non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal triploidy using single nucleotide polymorphism-based testing: Differential diagnosis and clinical management in cases showing an extra haplotype.

OBJECTIVE: An extra haplotype is infrequently encountered in single nucleotide polymorphism(SNP)-based non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and is usually attributed to an undetected twin or triploidy. We reviewed a large series to establish relative frequencies of these outcomes and identify alternative causes. METHODS: In 515,804 women receiving NIPT from September 2017 through March 2019, all results with an extra haplotype were reviewed. Known viable and vanished twin pregnancies were excluded. For positive cases, pregnancy outcome information was sought. RESULTS: Of 1005 results with an extra haplotype (1 in 513), pregnancy outcome was available for 773 cases: 11% were confirmed or suspected triploidy; 65% to vanished twin; 10% with pregnancy loss. Rare explanations included complete mole, chimera, undisclosed donor egg pregnancy, maternal organ transplant and one instance of maternal neoplasm. Among triploid cases that were detected and independently confirmed, 23/27 (85%) were diandric. CONCLUSION: SNP-based NIPT, with detection of an extra haplotype, is 11% predictive of triploidy. For results with an extra haplotype, ultrasound is recommended to establish viability, evaluate for twins (viable or vanished), and detect findings consistent with triploidy. Review of patient history, serum screening, and ultrasound will reduce the number of CVS or amniocenteses necessary to confirm a diagnosis of triploidy.

Uniparental disomy: Origin, frequency, and clinical significance.

Uniparental disomy (UPD) is defined as two copies of a whole chromosome derived from the same parent. There can be multiple mechanisms that lead to UPD; these are reviewed in the context of contemporary views on the mechanism leading to aneuploidy. Recent studies indicate that UPD is rare in an apparently healthy population and also rare in spontaneous abortion tissues. The most common type of UPD is a maternal heterodisomy (both maternal allele sets present). Isodisomy (a duplicated single set of alleles) or segmental loss of heterozygosity is sometimes encountered in SNP-based microarray referrals. Decisions regarding the most appropriate follow-up testing should consider the possibility of consanguinity (that will generally involve multiple regions), an imprinted gene disorder (chromosomes 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20), expression of an autosomal recessive disorder, and an occult aneuploid cell line that may be confined to the placenta. Upd(16)mat, per se, does not appear to be associated with an abnormal phenotype. UPD provides an insight into the history of early chromosome segregation error and understanding the rates and fate of these events are of key importance in the provision of fertility management and prenatal healthcare.

Review of epidemiological factors (other than maternal age) that determine the prevalence of common autosomal trisomies.

The birth prevalence of each common autosomal trisomy (21, 18 and 13) increases with advancing maternal age and this is the most important epidemiological risk factor. Prevalence during pregnancy is also dependent on gestational age. Other factors claimed to influence prevalence include paternal age, ethnicity, family history, premature reproductive aging, parity, twinning, smoking, environmental exposures, maternal medical conditions, and predispositions. We review the evidence for these associations since they may provide insights into causal mechanisms. When investigating potential co-factors it is important to adequately allow for maternal age and minimize its confounding contribution. This is well illustrated by reports of an inverse paternal age effect where there is strong correlation between parental ages. Gestational age at diagnosis, availability of prenatal screening, diagnostic testing, and elective termination of affected pregnancies and healthcare disparities also confound the studies on ethnicity, medical conditions, and predispositions or environmental factors. Data from twin zygosity studies demonstrate the importance of differences in fetal viability for affected pregnancies. We conclude that existing epidemiological evidence for most of the co-factors discussed should currently be considered tenuous; history of Down syndrome, albeit biased, may be an exception. The co-factors may yet provide clues to hitherto poorly understood causal pathways.

Non-invasive prenatal testing in the management of twin pregnancies.

Twin pregnancies are common and associated with pregnancy complications and adverse outcomes. Prenatal clinical management is intensive and has been hampered by inferior screening and less acceptable invasive testing. For aneuploidy screening, meta-analyses show that non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) through analysis of cell-free DNA (cf-DNA) is superior to serum and ultrasound-based tests. The positive predictive value for NIPT is driven strongly by the discriminatory power of the assay and only secondarily by the prior risk. Uncertainties in a priori risks for aneuploidies in twin pregnancies are therefore of lesser importance with NIPT. Additional information on zygosity can be obtained using NIPT. Establishing zygosity can be helpful when chorionicity was not reliably established early in pregnancy or where the there is a concern for one versus two affected fetuses. In dizygotic twin pregnancies, individual fetal fractions can be measured to ensure that both values are satisfactory. Vanishing twins can be identified by NIPT. Although clinical utility of routinely detecting vanishing twins has not yet been demonstrated, there are individual cases where cf-DNA analysis could be helpful in explaining unusual clinical or laboratory observations. We conclude that cf-DNA analysis and ultrasound have synergistic roles in the management of multiple gestational pregnancies.

Aneuploidy in first trimester chorionic villi and spontaneous abortions: Windows into the origin and fate of aneuploidy through embryonic and fetal development.

OBJECTIVE: To review the mosaic autosomal trisomies in chorionic villi sample (CVS) trophoblasts, mesenchyme, and both cell lineages and to compare them with trisomies in spontaneous abortions. METHODS: Mosaic autosomal trisomies from 76 102 diagnostic CVS tests were classified as involving trophoblasts, involving mesenchyme, or present in both. Autosomal trisomies in products of conception were based on 18 published studies. We evaluated correlates between trisomy frequency with chromosome size or number of protein coding genes in the imbalance. RESULTS: Distinctly different patterns of trisomy were found in trophoblasts, mesenchyme, or both. In trisomic spontaneous abortions, there was a weak, borderline significant, inverse association between frequency and trisomic chromosome size and also with the number of protein coding genes involved (r = 0.43, P = 0.04 and r = 0.39, P = 0.07, respectively). These associations became stronger after excluding trisomy 16 (r = 0.52, P = 0.01 and r = 0.64, P = 0.001, respectively). Only CVS trisomies in both trophoblasts and mesenchyme resembled the trisomies found in spontaneous abortions and these were also associated with chromosome size and protein coding genes (r = 0.42, P = 0.05 and r = 0.57, P = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSION: The abnormalities seen in CVS differ from those reported in early embryos. From conception through birth, there are lineage-specific, evolving spectrums of aneuploidy in trophoblasts, mesenchyme, and fetus.

The origins of aneuploidy research consortium.

The presence of high levels of aneuploidy in oocytes and early embryos and their fate is of considerable scientific and clinical importance. The Origins of Aneuploidy Research Consortium (OARC) was established to promote interdisciplinary communication and collaborative research into this topic. Under the umbrella of OARC, a series of papers has now been published in this Special Issue of Prenatal Diagnosis. Recent studies have transformed the view that aneuploidy is usually attributable to meiotic non-disjunction. The molecular basis for the association between meiotic error and maternal age is becoming understood. The clinical significance of mitotic instability in the earliest cells divisions of the embryo is also becoming clearer. An error in the segregation of one or more whole chromosomes from a parent does not invariably result in a non-viable pregnancy or an abnormal outcome. Epidemiologic data allows an assessment of in utero viability, the effect of maternal age, and secondary factors that may affect aneuploidy prevalence. We advocate careful use of nomenclature and revision of educational materials to more accurately explain the complex and often nuanced mechanisms. OARC plans to hold additional workshops, promote additional publications and offer educational resources.

Performance of conventional cytogenetic analysis on chorionic villi when only one cell layer, cytotrophoblast or mesenchyme alone, is analyzed.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an estimation of the probability of error when chorionic villi (CV) cytogenetic analysis is limited to a single placental layer; either a direct preparation (Dir) or long-term culture (LTC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed cytogenetic studies on 81,593 consecutive CV samples in which both Dir and LTC were analyzed. All mosaic cases received amniocentesis. The false omission and false discovery rates were calculated by assessing the results that would have been reported when analysis was limited to either Dir or LTC. RESULTS: For all abnormalities combined, the proportion of normal Dir or LTC only reports that would have been inconsistent with a subsequent amniocentesis was 0.09% and 0.03%, respectively (false omissions). Among abnormal reports based on Dir or LTC alone, 8.01% and 3.17%, respectively, would be inconsistent with a subsequent amniocentesis result (false discoveries). Differences are present for individual abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of identifying all abnormalities of potential clinical significance, the analysis of both placental layers is optimal. LTC alone is the preferred approach if only one layer of placenta is to be analyzed. Although rare, it is important to acknowledge that one cell layer analysis alone can cause misdiagnosis due to undetected mosaicism.

Correction: Clinical experience with carrier screening in a general population: support for a comprehensive pan-ethnic approach.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Clinical experience with carrier screening in a general population: support for a comprehensive pan-ethnic approach.

PURPOSE: To present results from a large cohort of individuals receiving expanded carrier screening (CS) in the United States. METHODS: Single-gene disorder carrier status for 381,014 individuals was determined using next-generation sequencing (NGS) based CS for up to 274 genes. Detection rates were compared with literature-reported values derived from disease prevalence and carrier frequencies. Combined theoretical affected pregnancy rates for the 274 screened disorders were calculated. RESULTS: For Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) diseases, 81.6% (4434/5435) of carriers identified did not report AJ ancestry. For cystic fibrosis, 44.0% (6260/14,229) of carriers identified had a variant not on the standard genotyping panel. Individuals at risk of being a silent spinal muscular atrophy carrier, not detectable by standard screening, comprised 1/39 (8763/344,407) individuals. For fragile X syndrome, compared with standard premutation screening, AGG interruption analysis modified risk in 83.2% (1128/1356) premutation carriers. Assuming random pairing across the study population, approximately 1/175 pregnancies would be affected by a disorder in the 274-gene screening panel. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard screening, NGS-based CS provides additional information that may impact reproductive choices. Pan-ethnic CS leads to substantially increased identification of at-risk couples. These data support offering NGS-based CS to all reproductive-aged women.

Outcomes in pregnancies with a confined placental mosaicism and implications for prenatal screening using cell-free DNA.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between confined placental mosaicism (CPM) and adverse pregnancy outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out evaluating the outcome of pregnancies with and without CPM involving a rare autosomal trisomy (RAT) or tetraploidy. Birthweight, gestational age at delivery, fetal growth restriction (FGR), Apgar score, neonatal intensive care admission, preterm delivery, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were considered. RESULTS: Overall 181 pregnancies with CPM and 757 controls were recruited. Outcome information was available for 69% of cases (n = 124) and 62% of controls (n = 468). CPM involving trisomy 16 (T16) was associated with increased incidence of birthweight <3rd centile (P = 0.007, odds ratio [OR] = 11.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7-47.1) and preterm delivery (P = 0.029, OR = 10.2, 95% CI = 1.9-54.7). For the other RATs, an association with prenatally diagnosed FGR was not supported by birthweight data and there were no other strong associations with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Excluding T16, the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes for pregnancies carrying a CPM is low. RATs can also be identified through genome-wide cell-free DNA screening. Because most of these will be attributable to CPMs, we conclude that this screening is of minimal benefit.

Cell-free DNA fetal fraction in twin gestations in single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening.

OBJECTIVES: The performance of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies is dependent on the amount of placentally derived cell-free DNA, the "fetal fraction (FF)," present in maternal plasma. We report FF values in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) pregnancies. METHODS: We reviewed FF in pregnancies at 10 to 20 completed weeks gestational age based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based NIPS where zygosity was routinely established in twin pregnancies. The cohort included 121 446 (96.3%) singleton, 1454 (1.2%) MZ, and 3161 (2.5%) DZ pregnancies. For DZ twins, individual FFs were measured. RESULTS: Combined FF for DZ and MZ fetuses were 35% and 26% greater than singletons, respectively. The individual FF contributions from each fetus in DZ twins were, on average, 32% less than singletons. FF in DZ twin pairs were moderately correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient.66). When a threshold of 2.8% FF was applied to define uninterpretable results, 1.7% (2102/121 446) of singletons, 0.8% (11/1454) of MZ pairs, and 5.6% (178/3161) of DZ pairs were uninterpretable. CONCLUSION: For optimal aneuploidy NIPS in twin pregnancies, zygosity should be established and in DZ twins FF for both fetuses should be determined to identify those cases where results can be reliably interpreted.

Combining the use of a fetal fraction-based risk algorithm and probability of an informative redraw in noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy.

Some women undergoing noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) do not receive an informative result due to low fetal fraction (FF). A proportion of these are at increased risk for fetal trisomy 13, 18, or triploidy, while others have no change from their prior risk. Women with an initial uninformative NIPT need to be counseled about any such change in their risk for fetal abnormality and also the probability that a redraw will be informative. To help in the decision making, we reviewed a dataset of single nucleotide polymorphism-based NIPT with uninformative results where a redraw was received. Risk for trisomy 13, 18, or triploidy was evaluated using a fetal fraction-based risk (FFBR) algorithm. Risk-unchanged women were further analyzed using a regression model to determine the likelihood of an informative redraw. Of 2,644 women with an uninformative NIPT and a redraw, 1,147 (43.4%) were high risk for trisomy 13, 18, or triploidy. 1,497 (56.6%) were risk unchanged and, of these, 975 (65.1%) cases had an informative redraw (i.e., risks were available for 2,122 (80%) of those initially classified as uninformative). The regression model for the risk-unchanged cases provided a new table for predicting an informative redraw. Likelihood of a successful redraw was significantly (p < .001) dependent on the initial FF, maternal weight, and time between blood draws. We conclude that the FFBR algorithm and the predictive model for an informative redraw provide complementary additions in the management of women presented with an initially uninformative SNP-based NIPT due to low FF. We suggest approaches for the counseling and follow-up testing for women with an initially uninformative NIPT.

Posttest risk calculation following positive noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma.

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome defects has high sensitivity and specificity but is not fully diagnostic. In response to a desire to provide more information to individual women with positive NIPS results, 2 online calculators have been developed to calculate posttest risk (PTR). Use of these calculators is critically reviewed. There is a mathematically dictated requirement for a precise estimate for the specificity to provide an accurate PTR. This is illustrated by showing that a 0.1% decrease in the value for specificities for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 can reduce the PTR from 79-64% for trisomy 21, 39-27% for trisomy 18, and 21-13% for trisomy 13, respectively. Use of the calculators assumes that sensitivity and specificity are constant for all women receiving the test but there is evidence that discordancy between screening results and true fetal karyotype is more common for older women. Use of an appropriate value for the prior risk is also important and for rare disorders there is considerable uncertainty regarding prevalence. For example, commonly used rates for trisomy 13, monosomy-X, triploidy, and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome can vary by >4-fold and this can translate into large differences in PTR. When screening for rare disorders, it may not be possible to provide a reliable PTR if there is uncertainty over the false-positive rate and/or prevalence. These limitations, per se, do not negate the value of screening for rare conditions. However, counselors need to carefully weigh the validity of PTR before presenting them to patients. Additional epidemiologic and NIPS outcome data are needed.

Ethical and practical challenges in providing noninvasive prenatal testing for chromosome abnormalities: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) through the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma has rapidly changed screening for fetal chromosome abnormalities. We review practical and ethical challenges associated with the transition, progress in their resolution, and identify new emerging difficulties. RECENT FINDINGS: NIPT is an advanced screening test for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 that was initially limited to women at high risk for an affected pregnancy. It is now recognized as suitable for all women. The testing has been expanded to include sex chromosome abnormalities and some microdeletion syndromes. Some ethicists are concerned about inclusion of disorders that have less severe phenotypes. SUMMARY: Clinical providers have experienced difficulty in maintaining an up-to-date knowledge about the scope of NIPT, differences between tests, who should be offered the testing, performance of tests, reasons for false-positive results, and optimal patient management following positive results. Some of the practical difficulties associated with the introduction can be attributed to this knowledge gap. There remain some important ethical issues associated with NIPT. We believe that the same ethical and legal principles that were considered in the justification of conventional prenatal screening can be used to assess the appropriateness of additional NIPT applications.