Placental studies elucidate discrepancies between NIPT showing a structural chromosome aberration and a differently abnormal fetal karyotype.

OBJECTIVE: Placental cytogenetic studies may reveal the origin of discordant noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). We performed placental studies to elucidate discordances between NIPT showing a structural chromosome aberration and the fetus having a different chromosome aberration in three cases. METHOD: Diagnostic testing with genomic SNP microarray was performed in three cases with NIPT showing a duplication on 4q (case 1), a terminal deletion of 13q (case 2), and a terminal deletion of 15q (case 3). Placental studies involved SNP array analysis of cytotrophoblast and mesenchymal core of chorionic villi of four placental quadrants. Clinical follow-up was performed as well. RESULTS: Amniotic fluid revealed a different structural chromosome aberration than predicted by NIPT: a terminal 2q deletion (case 1), a segmental uniparental isodisomy of 13q (case 2), and a terminal duplication of 15q and of 13q (case 3). Placental studies revealed the aberration detected with NIPT in the cytotrophoblast, whereas the fetal karyotype was confirmed in the placental mesenchymal core. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that targeted cytogenetic investigations for confirmation of NIPT showing a microscopically visible structural chromosome aberration should be avoided, since another aberration, even a submicroscopic one or one involving another chromosome, may be present in the fetus.

Unexpected finding of uniparental disomy mosaicism in term placentas: Is it a common feature in trisomic placentas?

OBJECTIVE: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) detects placental chromosome aberrations. When amniocentesis reveals a normal karyotype, confined placental mosaicism (CPM) may be assumed. In order to confirm this, placental cytogenetic studies were performed. METHOD: NIPT was conducted in the course of the Dutch TRIDENT study. Placentas of 10 cases with NIPT results indicating an autosomal trisomy and showing a normal (N = 9) or low mosaic karyotype (N = 1) in amniotic fluid (AF) were investigated. The cytotrophoblast as well as the mesenchymal core of two to four placental chorionic villi biopsies were studied with single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Clinical outcome data were collected. RESULTS: In 10/10 cases, CPM was proven. In 3/10 cases trisomy/uniparental disomy (UPD)/biparental disomy (BPD) mosaicism was discovered. In 2/3 cases, all three cell lines were present in the placenta, whereas BPD was found in AF. In 1/3 cases trisomy 22/UPD22 was present in AF while trisomy 22/BPD22 mosaicism was found in the placenta. Five of 10 pregnancies were affected with pre-eclampsia, low birth weight, preterm delivery, and/or congenital malformations. CONCLUSION: The presence of trisomy/UPD/BPD mosaicism in 3/10 cases that we investigated proves that trisomic zygote rescue may involve multiple rescue events during early embryogenesis. UPD mosaicism, when present in crucial fetal tissues, may explain the abnormal phenotype in undiagnosed cases.

Benefits and burdens of using a SNP array in pregnancies at increased risk for the common aneuploidies.

We present the nature of pathogenic SNP array findings in pregnancies without ultrasound (US) abnormalities and show the additional diagnostic value of SNP array as compared with rapid aneuploidy detection and karyotyping. 1,330 prenatal samples were investigated with a 0.5-Mb SNP array after the exclusion of the most common aneuploidies. In 2.7% (36/1,330) of the cases, pathogenic chromosome aberrations were found; a microscopically detectable abnormality in 0.7% and a submicroscopic aberration in 2%. Our results show that in addition to the age- or screening-related aneuploidy risk, in pregnancies without US abnormalities, there is a risk of 1:148 (9/1,330) for a (sub)microscopic abnormality associated with an early-onset often severe disease, 1:222 (6/1,330) for a submicroscopic aberration causing an early-onset disease, 1:74 (18/1,330) for carrying a susceptibility locus for a neurodevelopmental disorder, and 1:443 (3/1,330) for a late-onset disorder (hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies in all three cases). These risk figures are important for adequate pretest counseling so that prospective parents can make informed individualized choices between targeted prenatal testing and broad testing with SNP array. Based on our results, we believe if invasive testing is performed, SNP array should be the preferred cytogenetic technique irrespective of the indication.