Analysis of retest reliability for pregnant women undergoing cfDNA testing with a no-call result.

BACKGROUND: Determining the reasons for unreportable or no-call cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test results has been an ongoing issue, and a consensus on subsequent management is still lacking. This study aimed to explore potential factors related to no-call cfDNA test results and to discuss whether retest results are reliable. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective study of women with singleton pregnancies undergoing cfDNA testing in 2021. Of the 9871 pregnant patients undergoing cfDNA testing, 111 had a no-call result, and their results were compared to those of 170 control patients. The no-call rate was 1.12% (111/9871), and the primary cause for no-call results was data fluctuation (88.29%, 98/111). Medical conditions were significantly more frequent in the no-call group than in the reportable results group (P < 0.001). After retesting, 107 (107/111, 96.40%) patients had a result, and the false-positive rate (FPR) of retesting was 10.09% (10.09%, 11/109). In addition, placental lesions were more frequent in the no-call group than in the reportable results group (P = 0.037), and 4 patients, all in the no-call group, experienced pregnancy loss. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women with medical conditions are more likely to have a no-call result. A retest is suggested for patients with a no-call result, but retests have a high FPR. In addition, pregnant women with a no-call result are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In conclusion, more attention should be given to pregnant women for whom a no-call cfDNA result is obtained.

The performance of grey zone in common foetal aneuploidy screening by semiconductor sequencing.

A total of 15,267 pregnancies were tested by NIPT in this study. Grey zone (z score: 2.58 ∼ 4 and -4∼-2.58) was set for screening out aneuploidy 21, 18 and 13. Cases with z score located in the grey zone were retested starting from DNA extraction. The chi-squared test and/or the Fisher's exact test were used to compare variables. One hundred and eight screening-positive samples in the first run of NIPT were common trisomies 21 (N = 83), trisomies18 (N = 13) or trisomies 13 (N = 12), with PPVs of 87.18%, 76.92%, and 30% respectively. For the cases in the grey zone, most of them (67.15%, 184/274) were reported with Z score of Chromosome 21 in the grey zone and 176 were reclassified as negative by the second run of NIPT; while 3 cases reclassified as trisomy 21 and 1 case reclassified as trisomy 13 were finally confirmed by karyotyping analysis, with PPV 25% and 20% respectively. The grey zone and the second run of NIPT in this study showed that the grey zone and second run NIPT approach was able to accurately help categorise cases as negative and positive. Invasive diagnosis is recommended to prevent false negative aneuploidies for samples located in the special z score scope of 2.58-3 for two runs of NIPT. IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Grey zone was widely used in NIPT. The performance of grey zone of clinical samples on Illumina HiSeq 2000 instrument has been reported, and the performance of grey zone on some mainstream sequencers with simulated samples has also been summarised. Reported treatments for samples located in the grey zone in NIPT usually included being classified into 'unclassified' or 'no call' followed by following up and/or karyotyping analysis.What do the results of this study add? This study investigated the performance of the grey zone on Ion Proton DA8600 with clinical samples; and it present an alternative treatment for samples in grey zone that reclassified them as negative or positive by the second run of sequencing.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our own data for the performance of the grey zone in the cfDNA assay on the semiconductor sequencing platform might provide raw materials for other researchers' meta-analysis, cohort study, or other studies. Details of Z score distributions of chromosomes in grey zone, results of the second run of NIPT for samples in the grey zone, and false negative samples in the grey zone would help lab technicians better analyse the NIPT results and help doctors to improve genetic counselling.

Factors associated with test failure in pregnant women undergoing cell-free DNA-based testing for fetal trisomy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with cell-free DNA test failure, and the optimal subsequent management of these pregnancies. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 27,363 singleton pregnancies undergoing cell-free DNA testing. Women with cell-free DNA test failure were divided into a high-risk group and a low-risk group according to their indications. The subsequent management and pregnancy outcomes of these women were followed up. RESULTS: The rate of cell-free DNA test failure at the first sampling was 1.49%, and 78.4% of failures were due to a low fetal fraction. Of the 66 women who refused any subsequent management, an adverse pregnancy outcome was seen in 5 cases, all belonging to the high-risk group. Of the 13 low-risk women who chose second-trimester maternal serum screening, all obtained a low-risk maternal serum screening result and an unaffected pregnancy outcome. A redraw was chosen by 171 women, which yielded a result in 75.4% and their pregnancy outcomes were unaffected; 42 women had an uninformative result again and received an amniocentesis. As 158 women had an amniocentesis after the first sampling, this procedure was offered in 200 cases altogether. Abnormal genetic testing results were shown in six (3%, 6/200) cases, all in the high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk pregnant women with cell-free DNA test failure are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. A second sampling for cell-free DNA test or maternal serum screening might be suggested to low-risk women. Invasive prenatal diagnosis should be offered to the high-risk patients, especially those with a second cell-free DNA test failure.

Cell-free DNA analysis in maternal blood: comparing genome-wide versus targeted approach as a first-line screening test.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the failure rate and performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing as a first-line screening method for major trisomies, performed by two laboratories using different analytical methods: a targeted chromosome-selective method (Harmony® prenatal Test) versus a home-brew genome-wide (GW) massively parallel sequencing method (HB-cfDNA test), and to evaluate the clinical value of incidental findings for the latter method. METHODS: CfDNA testing was performed in 3137 pregnancies with the Harmony® prenatal Test and in 3373 pregnancies with the HB-cfDNA test. Propensity score analysis was used to match women between both groups for maternal age, weight, gestational age at testing, in vitro fertilization, rate of twin pregnancies and that of aneuploidies. Detection rates for trisomy 21 were compared between the 2 laboratories. For the HB-cfDNA test, cases with rare incidental findings were reported, including their clinical follow-up. RESULTS: The Harmony® prenatal Test failed at the first attempt in 90 (2.9%) of 3114 women and the HB-cfDNA test in 413 (12.2%) of 3373 women. Postmatched comparisons of the women's characteristics indicate a significantly lower failure rate in the Harmony® group (2.8%) than in the HB cfDNA group (12.4%; p < .001). Of the 90 women in whom the Harmony® prenatal Test failed, 61 had a repeat test, which still failed in 10, and of the 413 women in whom the HB-cfDNA test failed, 379 had a repeat test, which still failed in 110. The total failure rate after one or two attempts was therefore 1.3% (39/3114) for Harmony® and 4.3% (144/3373) for the HB cfDNA test. After the first or second Harmony® prenatal Test, a high-risk result was noted in 17 of the 17 cases with trisomy 21, in 5 of the seven cases with trisomy 18, and a no-call in two cases, and in the one case with trisomy 13. The respective numbers for the HB-cfDNA test are 17 of the 18 cases with trisomy 21, and a no-call in one case, 2 of the two cases with trisomy 18, and in 2 of the three cases with trisomy 13, and a no-call in one. Of the 3373 women with the HB-cfDNA test, a rare incidental finding was noted in 28 (0.8%) of the cases, of which only 2 were confirmed on amniocytes (one with microduplication 1q21.1q21.2 and one with a deletion Xp21.1), and in another case a deletion rather than a duplication of the long arm of chromosome 8 was found. In all 28 cases, there was normal clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of cfDNA testing between these two laboratories showed a four-fold lower failure rate with the Harmony® prenatal Test, with a similar detection rate for trisomy 21. We showed no clinical relevance of disclosing additional findings beyond common trisomies with the GW HB-cfDNA test.

Two-stage approach for risk estimation of fetal trisomy 21 and other aneuploidies using computational intelligence systems.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of fetal trisomy 21 (T21) and other chromosomal abnormalities (OCA) at 11-13 weeks' gestation using computational intelligence classification methods. METHODS: As a first step, a training dataset consisting of 72 054 euploid pregnancies, 295 cases of T21 and 305 cases of OCA was used to train an artificial neural network. Then, a two-stage approach was used for stratification of risk and diagnosis of cases of aneuploidy in the blind set. In Stage 1, using four markers, pregnancies in the blind set were classified into no risk and risk. No-risk pregnancies were not examined further, whereas the risk pregnancies were forwarded to Stage 2 for further examination. In Stage 2, using seven markers, pregnancies were classified into three types of risk, namely no risk, moderate risk and high risk. RESULTS: Of 36 328 unknown to the system pregnancies (blind set), 17 512 euploid, two T21 and 18 OCA were classified as no risk in Stage 1. The remaining 18 796 cases were forwarded to Stage 2, of which 7895 euploid, two T21 and two OCA cases were classified as no risk, 10 464 euploid, 83 T21 and 61 OCA as moderate risk and 187 euploid, 50 T21 and 52 OCA as high risk. The sensitivity and the specificity for T21 in Stage 2 were 97.1% and 99.5%, respectively, and the false-positive rate from Stage 1 to Stage 2 was reduced from 51.4% to ∼1%, assuming that the cell-free DNA test could identify all euploid and aneuploid cases. CONCLUSION: We propose a method for early diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities that ensures that most T21 cases are classified as high risk at any stage. At the same time, the number of euploid cases subjected to invasive or cell-free DNA examinations was minimized through a routine procedure offered in two stages. Our method is minimally invasive and of relatively low cost, highly effective at T21 identification and it performs better than do other existing statistical methods. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.