Variability in Fetal Fraction Estimation: Comparing Fetal Fractions Reported by Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Providers Globally.

BACKGROUND: Fetal fraction (FF) measurement is considered important for reliable noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Using minimal FF threshold as a quality parameter is under debate. We evaluated the variability in reported FFs of individual samples between providers and laboratories and within a single laboratory. METHODS: Genomic quality assessment and European Molecular Genetics Quality Network provide joint proficiency testing for NIPT. We compared reported FFs across all laboratories and stratified according to test methodologies. A single sample was sequenced repeatedly and FF estimated by 2 bioinformatics methods: Veriseq2 and SeqFF. Finally, we compared FFs by Veriseq and SeqFF in 87 351 NIPT samples. RESULTS: For each proficiency test sample we observed a large variability in reported FF, SDs and CVs ranging from 1.7 to 3.6 and 17.0 to 35.8, respectively. FF measurements reported by single nucleotide polymorphism-based methods had smaller SDs (0.5 to 2.4) compared to whole genome sequencing-based methods (1.8 to 2.9). In the internal quality assessment, SDs were similar between SeqFF (SD 1.0) and Veriseq v2 (SD 0.9), but mean FF by Veriseq v2 was higher compared to SeqFF (9.0 vs 6.4, P 0.001). In patient samples, reported FFs were on average 1.12-points higher in Veriseq than in SeqFF (P 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Current methods do not allow for a reliable and consistent FF estimation. Our data show estimated FF should be regarded as a laboratory-specific range, rather than a precise number. Applying strict universal minimum thresholds might result in unnecessary test failures and should be used with caution.

Ensuring high standards for the delivery of NIPT world-wide: Development of an international external quality assessment scheme.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure accurate and appropriate reporting of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results, the standard of testing should be measured and monitored by participation in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. The findings from international pilot EQAs for NIPT for the common trisomies are presented. METHODS: In the first pilot, three EQA providers used artificially manufactured reference materials to deliver an EQA for NIPT. The second pilot used clinically collected maternal plasma samples. The testing and reporting for aneuploidy status was performed by participating laboratories using routine procedures. Reports were assessed against peer ratified criteria and EQA scores were returned to participants. RESULTS: Forty laboratories participated in the first. Genotyping accuracy was high; four laboratories reported a critical genotyping error (10%) and two reported partial results. Eighty seven laboratories participated in the second pilot using maternal plasma, two reporting a critical genotyping error (2.3%). For both rounds, report content was variable with key information frequently omitted or difficult to identify within the report. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully delivered an international pilot EQA for NIPT. When compared with currently available manufactured materials, EQA for NIPT was best performed using clinically collected maternal plasma. Work is required to define and improve the standard of reporting.