Inclusion of sex chromosomes in noninvasive prenatal testing in Asia,Australia, Europe and the USA: A survey study

Objective

To examine the extent to which sex chromosomes are included in current noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and the reporting practices with respect to fetal chromosomal sex and sex chromosome aberrations (SCAs), in addition to an update on the general implementation of NIPT.

Method

A questionnaire addressing the research objectives was distributed by email to fetal medicine and clinical genetics experts in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA.

Results

Guidelines on NIPT are available in the majority of the included countries. Not all existing guidelines address reporting of fetal chromosomal sex and SCAs. In most settings, NIPT frequently includes sex chromosomes (five Australian states, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, Thailand, USA and 23 of 31 European countries). This occurs most often by default or when parents wish to know fetal sex. In most settings, a potential SCA is reported by stating the risk hereof as “low” or “high” and/or by naming the SCA. Less than 50% of all pregnant women receive NIPT according to respondents from three Australian states, China, Israel, Singapore, Thailand and 24 of 31 European countries. However, this percentage, the genomic coverage of NIPT and its application as primary or secondary screening vary by setting.

Conclusion

In most of the studied countries/states, NIPT commonly includes sex chromosomes. The reporting practices concerning fetal chromosomal sex and SCAs are diverse and most commonly not addressed by guidelines. In general, NIPT is variably implemented across countries/states.     

Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices,evidence, and ethical issues

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can determine the sex of the fetus very accurately and very early in gestation. There are concerns that the ease, timing, and accuracy of NIPT sex determination will facilitate sex-selective termination of pregnancy (TOP). Here, we review current practices, the evidence for a link between NIPT and sex-selective TOP, and associated ethical issues. Sex-selective TOP, usually motivated by son preference, has had serious demographic consequences in countries such as India and China. Currently, ultrasound is the primary method by which parents determine the sex of the fetus. The diffusion of ultrasound technology has had a direct impact on the rates of sex-selective TOP. Although NIPT is currently more costly, it is feasible that increased uptake of this technology could have a similar effect. Partly because NIPT is a relatively recent development in prenatal screening, there is little data on the impact of NIPT on sex selection practices. Evidence that NIPT is playing a role in sex-selective TOP remains largely anecdotal. Further research is required to assess and quantify TOP resulting from NIPT sex determination. The use of these technologies for sex selection raises a number of ethical issues, in addition to practical demographic consequences.     

State-wide increase in prenatal diagnosis of klinefelter syndrome on amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: Impact of non-invasive prenatal testing for sex chromosome conditions

Background

To analyze population-based trends in the prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) since the availability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Methods

Retrospective state-wide data for all prenatal diagnoses performed <25 weeks gestation from 2005 to 2020 in Victoria, Australia. Non-invasive prenatal testing became locally available from 2012. The prenatal diagnosis rates of SCA as proportions of all prenatal diagnostic tests and all births were calculated. Statistical significance was assessed with the χ² test for trend, with p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

46,518 amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling were performed during the study period, detecting 617 SCAs. There was a significant increase in the rate of prenatal SCAs from 5.8 per 10,000 births in 2005 to 8.7 per 10,000 births in 2020 (p < 0.0001). This increase was predominantly due to 47,XXY cases, 91% of which were ascertained via positive NIPT for this condition in 2020. The prenatal diagnosis rate of 47,XXY significantly increased from 0.8 per 10,000 births in 2005 to 4.3 per 10,000 births in 2020 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Screening for SCAs using NIPT has directly led to an increase in their prenatal diagnosis on a population-wide basis, especially 47,XXY. This has implications for clinician education, genetic counselling, and pediatric services.     

Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States

Cell-free fetal DNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could significantly change the paradigm of prenatal testing and screening. Intellectual property (IP) and commercialization promise to be important components of the emerging debate about clinical implementation of these technologies. We have assembled information about types of testing, prices, turnaround times, and reimbursement of recently launched commercial tests in the United States from the trade press, news articles, and scientific, legal, and business publications. We also describe the patenting and licensing landscape of technologies underlying these tests and ongoing patent litigation in the United States. Finally, we discuss how IP issues may affect clinical translation of NIPT and their potential implications for stakeholders. Fetal medicine professionals (clinicians and researchers), genetic counselors, insurers, regulators, test developers, and patients may be able to use this information to make informed decisions about clinical implementation of current and emerging noninvasive prenatal tests. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis: Expanded NIPT that includes conditions other than trisomies 13, 18, and 21 should be offered

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) based on analysis of cell free DNA circulating in the maternal plasma has been available clinically to screen for chromosomal abnormalities since 2011. There is significant evidence to suggest that NIPT has revolutionised prenatal screening for the common trisomies 13, 18, and 21. However, the evidence in favour of its extended use to screen for conditions other than these trisomies remains a topic of debate with no national or international organisation supporting clinical implementation for these indications. In the debate presented here – "Expanded NIPT that includes conditions other than trisomies 13, 18, and 21 should be offered" – we will see the pros and cons of screening for a wider range of chromosomal problems. The discussion presented swung the vote from 65% in favour and 35% against before the arguments were voiced to 41% in favour and 59% against. This significant swing in the vote indicates that the majority of our community feel more evidence is required before clinical implementation of extended NIPT.     

Benefits and limitations of prenatal screening for Prader–Willi syndrome

This review summarizes the status of genetic laboratory testing in Prader–Willi syndrome (PWS) with different genetic subtypes, most often a paternally derived 15q11–q13 deletion and discusses benefits and limitations related to prenatal screening. Medical literature was searched for prenatal screening and genetic laboratory testing methods in use or under development and discussed in relationship to PWS. Genetic testing includes six established laboratory diagnostic approaches for PWS with direct application to prenatal screening. Ultrasonographic, obstetric and cytogenetic reports were summarized in relationship to the cause of PWS and identification of specific genetic subtypes including maternal disomy 15. Advances in genetic technology were described for diagnosing PWS specifically DNA methylation and high-resolution chromosomal SNP microarrays as current tools for genetic screening and incorporating next generation DNA sequencing for noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free fetal DNA. Positive experiences are reported with NIPT for detection of numerical chromosomal problems (aneuploidies) but not for structural problems (microdeletions). These reports will be discussed along with future directions for genetic screening of PWS. In summary, this review describes and discusses the status of established and ongoing genetic testing options for PWS applicable in prenatal screening including NIPT and future directions for early diagnosis in PWS. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had a profound influence in the field of prenatal diagnosis since the 1997 discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood. Research has progressed rapidly, with clinical data supporting laboratory studies showing that NIPT is highly sensitive and specific for fetal aneuploidy, resulting in marked uptake in the high-risk patient population. The superior accuracy of NIPT compared with conventional screening methods has led to significant decreases in the number of invasive diagnostic procedures, in addition to a concomitant decrease in the number of procedure-related fetal losses. Yet, NIPT has been described as a ‘disruptive innovation’ due to the considerable changes the technology has commanded on current prenatal screening and diagnostic practices. This review summarizes both institutional and global experience with NIPT uptake, its effect on reducing diagnostic invasive procedures, and the unique challenges that reduced procedural volume may have on physician and trainee proficiency, cytogenetic laboratories, and neonatal outcome. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Issues associated with possible implementation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in first-tier screening: A rapid scoping review

In recent years, as the implementation and use of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) have increased, the cost of the test has been decreasing. The cost of NIPT is expected to fall further in the upcoming years. As a result of the decreasing cost of NIPT, many jurisdictions may change their prenatal screening policies toward abandoning serum-based screening and instead, implement and support NIPT as the first-tier screening for all women. There are several concerns in replacing first-trimester screening with NIPT. In this scoping review, we aimed to map the existing knowledge about possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening and to assess if any jurisdiction has altered its policy and discontinued serum-based prenatal screening in exchange for NIPT. The Medline database (Ovid) and Google Scholar was searched and all the studies discussing, investigating, or reporting on the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening were included. All the studies went through a two-stage screening process and included full-text articles were reviewed. We did not find any articles indicating a country or region that replaced traditional prenatal screening by NIPT. The included articles were charted, and the data about the possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening are summarized narratively and presented in tables in four categories. The findings of this scoping review may be informative for stakeholders and policymakers regarding recent changes in NIPT implementation policies around the world and may aid with developing policy for NIPT implementation with a broader perspective.     

Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

Objective

To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Method

A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious.

Results

Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were “I would never terminate my pregnancy” (57.1%) and “every child is welcome” (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy.

Conclusion

The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.     

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.     

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: Cell-free DNA prenatal screening should be used to identify all chromosome abnormalities

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from maternal serum has been clinically available since 2011. This technology has revolutionized our ability to screen for the common aneuploidies trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. More recently, clinical laboratories have offered screening for other chromosome abnormalities including sex chromosome abnormalities and copy number variants (CNV) without little published data on the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. In this debate, the pros and cons of performing prenatal screening via cfDNA for all chromosome abnormalities is discussed. At the time of the debate in 2017, the general consensus was that the literature does not yet support using this technology to screen for all chromosome abnormalities and that education is key for both providers and the patients so that the decision-making process is as informed as possible.     

Discordant results between fetal karyotyping and non-invasive prenatal testing by maternal plasma sequencing in a case of uniparental disomy 21 due to trisomic rescue

Uniparental disomy (UPD) is an uncommon chromosome condition, but UPD involving chromosome 21 is rarely reported. We reported here a case who had first trimester screening test for Down syndrome, chorionic villus sampling for fetal karyotyping, quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR), as well as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) by maternal plasma sequencing. There were discordant results between fetal karyotyping and NIPT due to UPD 21combined with confined placental mosaicism of trisomy 21. This demonstrated that it is possible to detect placental mosaicism by NIPT, but further studies are required to confirm its sensitivity. Therefore, all positive NIPT results must be confirmed by conventional invasive test and karyotyping. QF-PCR has the additional benefit in diagnosing UPD. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Discordant non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) – a systematic review

With a high sensitivity and specificity, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is an incomparable screening test for fetal aneuploidy. However, the method is rather newly introduced, and experiences with discordant results are few. We did a systematic review of literature reporting details of false positive and false negative NIPT results. Discordant sex chromosome results were not included. We identified 22 studies reporting case details. In total, 206 discordant cases were included, of which 88% were false positive and 12% false negative. Details on maternal age, gestational age, platform/company, Z-score, fetal fraction, results and explanation were specified. The main reasons for discordant results were confined placental mosaicism, maternal copy number variation, vanished twin, maternal cancer and true fetal mosaicism. A very high percentage of cases (67%) were reported with no obvious biological or technical explanation for the discordant result. The included cases represent only a minor part of the true number of false positive or false negative NIPT cases identified in fetal medicine clinics around the world. To ensure knowledge exchange and transparency of NIPT between laboratories, we suggest a systematic recording of discordant NIPT results, as well as a quality assurance by external quality control and accreditation. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Fetal fraction and noninvasive prenatal testing: What clinicians need to know

The fetal fraction (FF) is a function of both biological factors and bioinformatics algorithms used to interpret DNA sequencing results. It is an essential quality control component of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results. Clinicians need to understand the biological influences on FF to be able to provide optimal post-test counseling and clinical management. There are many different technologies available for the measurement of FF. Clinicians do not need to know the details behind the bioinformatics algorithms of FF measurements, but they do need to appreciate the significant variations between the different sequencing technologies used by different laboratories. There is no universal FF threshold that is applicable across all platforms and there have not been any differences demonstrated in NIPT performance by sequencing platform or method of FF calculation. Importantly, while FF should be routinely measured, there is not yet a consensus as to whether it should be routinely reported to the clinician. The clinician should know what to expect from a standard test report and whether reasons for failed NIPT results are revealed. Emerging solutions to the challenges of samples with low FF should reduce rates of failed NIPT in the future. In the meantime, having a “plan B" prepared for those patients for whom NIPT is unsuccessful is essential in today's clinical practice.     

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in twin pregnancies affected by early single fetal demise: A systematic review of NIPT and vanishing twins

The screening performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in vanishing twin (VT) pregnancies is relatively unknown. To close this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic review of the available literature. Studies describing the test performance of NIPT for trisomy 21, 18, 13, sex chromosomes and additional findings in pregnancies with a VT were retrieved from a literature search with a publication date until October 4, 2022. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2). The screen positive rate of the pooled data and the pooled positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated using a random effects model. Seven studies, with cohort sizes ranging from 5 to 767, were included. The screen positive rate of the pooled data for trisomy 21 was 35/1592 (2.2%), with a PPV of 20% (confirmation in 7/35 cases [95% CI 9.8%–36%]). For trisomy 18, the screen positive rate was 13/1592 (0.91%) and the pooled PPV 25% [95% CI 1.3%–90%]. The screen positive rate for trisomy 13 was 7/1592 (0.44%) and confirmed in 0/7 cases (pooled PPV 0% [95% CI 0%–100%]). The screen positive rate for additional findings was 23/767 (2.9%), of which none could be confirmed. No discordant negative results were reported. There is insufficient data to fully evaluate NIPT performance in pregnancies with a VT. However, existing studies suggest that NIPT can successfully detect common autosomal aneuploidies in pregnancies affected by a VT but with a higher false positive rate. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal timing of NIPT in VT pregnancies.     

Increased nuchal translucency after low-risk noninvasive prenatal testing: What should we tell prospective parents?

Three decades ago, the observation that first trimester fetuses with excess fluid accumulation at the back of the neck were more likely to be aneuploid, gave rise to a new era of prenatal screening. The nuchal translucency (NT) measurement in combination with serum biomarkers and maternal age, resulted in the first trimester combined screening (FTCS) program. The introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) over the past decade has introduced the option for parents to receive highly sensitive and specific screening information for common trisomy from as early as 10 weeks gestation, altering the traditional pathway FTCS pathway. The retention of the 11–13-week NT ultrasound remains important in the detection of structural anomalies; however, the optimal management of pregnancies with a low-risk NIPT result and an isolated increased NT measurement in an era of advanced genomic testing options is a new dilemma for clinicians. For parents, the prolonged period between the initial diagnosis in first trimester, and prognostic information at each successive stage of investigations up to 22–24 weeks, can be emotionally challenging. This article addresses the common questions from parents and clinicians as they navigate the uncertainty of having a fetus diagnosed with an increased NT after a low-risk NIPT result and presents suggested approaches to management.     

Noninvasive prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis using circulating trophoblasts: Detection of the 50 most common disease-causing variants

Objectives

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is one of the most common severe autosomal recessive disorders. Prenatal or preconception CF screening is offered in some countries. A maternal blood sample in early pregnancy can provide circulating trophoblasts and offers a DNA source for genetic analysis of both the mother and the fetus. This study aimed to develop a cell-based noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) to screen for the 50 most common CF variants.

Methods

Blood samples were collected from 30 pregnancies undergoing invasive diagnostics and circulating trophoblasts were harvested in 27. Cystic fibrosis testing was conducted using two different methods: by fragment length analysis and by our newly developed NGS-based CF analysis.

Results

In all 27 cases, cell-based NIPT provided a result using both methods in agreement with the invasive test result.

Conclusion

This study shows that cell-based NIPT for CF screening provides a reliable result without the need for partner- and proband samples.     

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 1: NIPT for chromosome abnormalities should be offered to women with low a priori risk

In its successful annual cycle of controversies and debates, the International Society of Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy once again addressed non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) by following up on the 2013 controversy, ‘Should non-invasive DNA testing be the standard screening test for Down syndrome in all pregnant women’? with the proposition, ‘NIPT for chromosomel abnormalities should be offered to women with low a priori risk’. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Overview and recent developments in cell-based noninvasive prenatal testing

Investigators have long been interested in the natural phenomenon of fetal and placental cell trafficking into the maternal circulation. The scarcity of these circulating cells makes their detection and isolation technically challenging. However, as a DNA source of fetal origin not mixed with maternal DNA, they have the potential of considerable benefit over circulating cell-free DNA-based noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT). Endocervical trophoblasts, which are less rare but more challenging to recover are also being investigated as an approach for cell-based NIPT. We review published studies from around the world describing both forms of cell-based NIPT and highlight the different approaches’ advantages and drawbacks. We also offer guidance for developing a sound cell-based NIPT protocol.