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 weight <2.3rd percentile (13.6% [24/177] vs 2.5% [3,892/155,491]; RR 5.5) were significantly increased compared to the general obstetric population. Of the 90 maternal findings, 12 (13.3%) were malignancies and 32 (35.6%) (mosaic) pathogenic copy number variants, mostly associated with mild or no clinical phenotypes. Data from this large cohort study provide crucial information for deciding if and how to implement GW-NIPT in screening programs. Additionally, these data can inform the challenging interpretation, counseling, and follow-up of additional findings.

How unexpected are unexpected findings in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis? A literature review.

The objective of this review was to gain understanding about unexpected findings in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis. This category of results might be excluded from prenatal testing when new molecular tests such as I-FISH and QF-PCR will be applied in a future scenario of targeted testing. The literature was systematically searched for publications wherein the term unexpected or a synonym refers to testing results with specific problems. On the selected articles a qualitative analysis was performed, using the methods of cross-case analysis and within-case analysis. Sixteen articles published between 1979 and 2003 were selected. Analysis led to the classification of four problems of unexpected findings: I. unexpected for professionals; II. unexpected for patients; III. uncertainty; IV. other difficult counselling issues. We conclude that currently the problems of unexpected findings relate only slightly to their unexpected character. Instead, the main problems of unexpected findings relate to uncertainty and other aspects which create difficult counselling issues. As such, unexpected findings can be distinguished only gradually from standard results. Before targeted testing can be applied it is necessary to establish exact criteria in order to discern unexpected findings from standard testing results.