Review of epidemiological factors (other than maternal age) that determine the prevalence of common autosomal trisomies

The birth prevalence of each common autosomal trisomy (21, 18 and 13) increases with advancing maternal age and this is the most important epidemiological risk factor. Prevalence during pregnancy is also dependent on gestational age. Other factors claimed to influence prevalence include paternal age, ethnicity, family history, premature reproductive aging, parity, twinning, smoking, environmental exposures, maternal medical conditions, and predispositions. We review the evidence for these associations since they may provide insights into causal mechanisms. When investigating potential co-factors it is important to adequately allow for maternal age and minimize its confounding contribution. This is well illustrated by reports of an inverse paternal age effect where there is strong correlation between parental ages. Gestational age at diagnosis, availability of prenatal screening, diagnostic testing, and elective termination of affected pregnancies and healthcare disparities also confound the studies on ethnicity, medical conditions, and predispositions or environmental factors. Data from twin zygosity studies demonstrate the importance of differences in fetal viability for affected pregnancies. We conclude that existing epidemiological evidence for most of the co-factors discussed should currently be considered tenuous; history of Down syndrome, albeit biased, may be an exception. The co-factors may yet provide clues to hitherto poorly understood causal pathways.     

Cell-free DNA fetal fraction in twin gestations in single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening

Objectives

The performance of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies is dependent on the amount of placentally derived cell-free DNA, the “fetal fraction (FF),” present in maternal plasma. We report FF values in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) pregnancies.

Methods

We reviewed FF in pregnancies at 10 to 20 completed weeks gestational age based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based NIPS where zygosity was routinely established in twin pregnancies. The cohort included 121 446 (96.3%) singleton, 1454 (1.2%) MZ, and 3161 (2.5%) DZ pregnancies. For DZ twins, individual FFs were measured.

Results

Combined FF for DZ and MZ fetuses were 35% and 26% greater than singletons, respectively. The individual FF contributions from each fetus in DZ twins were, on average, 32% less than singletons. FF in DZ twin pairs were moderately correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient.66). When a threshold of 2.8% FF was applied to define uninterpretable results, 1.7% (2102/121 446) of singletons, 0.8% (11/1454) of MZ pairs, and 5.6% (178/3161) of DZ pairs were uninterpretable.

Conclusion

For optimal aneuploidy NIPS in twin pregnancies, zygosity should be established and in DZ twins FF for both fetuses should be determined to identify those cases where results can be reliably interpreted.     

Proposed guidelines for diagnosis of chromosome mosaicism in amniocytes based on data derived from chromosome mosaicism and pseudomosaicism studies

Currently, accepted protocol which has been developed at the Prenatal Diagnosis Laboratory of New York City (PDL) requires that when a chromosome abnormality is found in one or more cells in one flask, another 20–40 cells must be examined from one or two additional flasks. Chromosome mosaicism is diagnosed only when an identical abnormality is detected in cells from two or more flasks. In a recent PDL series of 12 000 cases studied according to this protocol, we diagnosed 801 cases (6.68 per cent) of single-cell pseudomosaicism (SCPM), 126 cases (1.05 per cent) of multiple-cell pseudomosaicism (MCPM), and 24 cases (0.2 per cent) of true mosaicism. Pseudomosaicism (PM) involving a structural abnormality was a frequent finding (2/3 of SCPM and 3/5 of MCPM), with an unbalanced structural abnormality in 55 per cent of SCPM and 24 per cent of MCPM. We also reviewed all true mosaic cases (a total of 50) diagnosed in the first 22000 PDL cases. Of these 50 cases, 23 were sex chromosome mosaics and 27 had autosomal mosaicism; 48 cases had numerical abnormalities and two had structural abnormalities. Twenty-five cases of mosaicism were diagnosed in the first 20 cells from two flasks, i.e., without additional work-up, whereas the other 25 cases required extensive work-up to establish a diagnosis (12 needed additional cell counts from the initial two culture flasks; 13 required harvesting a third flask for cell analysis). Our data plus review of other available data led us to conclude that rigorous efforts to diagnose true mosaicism have little impact in many instances, and therefore are not cost-effective. On the basis of all available data, a work-up for potential mosaicism involving a sex chromosome aneuploidy or structural abnormality should have less priority than a work-up for a common viable autosomal trisomy. We recommend revised guidelines for dealing with (1) a numerical versus a structural abnormality and (2) an autosomal versus a sex chromosome numerical aneuploidy. Emphasis should be placed on autosomes known to be associated with phenotypic abnormalities. These new guidelines, which cover both flask and in situ methods, should result in more effective prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis and reduced patient anxiety.