Cell-free DNA screening in twin pregnancies: A more accurate and reliable screening tool

Objective

Outcome data from cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening in twin gestations are limited. This study adds an appreciable number of confirmed outcomes to the literature, and assesses performance of cfDNA screening in twins over a 4.5-year period at one large clinical laboratory.

Method

Prenatal cytogenetic and SNP microarray results were cross-referenced with cfDNA results for twin pregnancies, yielding 422 matched cases. Using diagnostic results as truth, performance of cfDNA screening in this population was assessed.

Results

Of the 422 twin pregnancies with both cfDNA and diagnostic results, 3 specimens failed amniocyte analysis, and 48 samples (11.5%) were nonreportable from the initial cfDNA draw. Analysis of the 371 reportable samples demonstrated a collective sensitivity of 98.7% and specificity of 93.2% for trisomies 21/18/13. Positive predictive values (PPVs) in this study population, which is enriched for aneuploidy, were 78.7%, 84.6%, and 66.7% for trisomy 21, 18, and 13, respectively.

Conclusion

CfDNA screening in a cohort of twin pregnancies with matched diagnostic results showed superior performance compared to traditional serum biochemical screening in twins. This study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that cfDNA is an accurate and reliable screening tool for the major trisomies in twin pregnancies.

     

Prenatal screening for haemoglobin disorders

The technology has been available to detect carriers of haemoglobin disorders since the late 1960s. Prenatal diagnosis has been available since 1978. First trimester diagnosis by chorionic villus sampling and DNA analysis was introduced in 1982, and subsequent simplifications in DNA technology have made screening, counselling and prenatal diagnosis cost-effective at the community level, in countries at all levels of development. Audit of prenatal diagnosis for haemoglobin disorders in countries which have the resources and infrastructure necessary for genetic population screening (such as the UK and other European countries), has shown that the number of prenatal diagnoses actually performed fall far short of expectation. The demonstration that this reflects failures in delivering information, screening and counselling to the populations at risk, rather than rejection of prenatal diagnosis, shows the importance of placing more emphasis on the organisational and social requirements for genetic population screening. In some countries current attitudes towards abortion exclude provision of prenatal diagnosis within the health service, but in many such cases it has been set up in the private sector. It is also being introduced through combined private and charitable efforts in an increasing number of developing countries, including some with extremely limited health resources: such centres are likely to act as nuclei for emergence of genetics services in these communities. A particularly notable recent achievement is the introduction of prenatal diagnosis in Nigeria, where 1–2% of all children born suffer from sickling disorders.     

Ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities

Ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities is increasingly becoming part of routine antenatal care in Europe and the UK. However, there has been very little formal evaluation of this practice. In this article reports of routine ultrasound screening are reviewed and the advantages and disadvantages discussed. The majority of routine anomaly scanning is done in the second trimester but there may be a case for screening at other times in pregnancy and alternative anomaly screening policies are discussed.     

Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis

A number of different models of CF carrier screening have now been tested in pilot trials. Apart from opportunistic and cascade testing (which are strictly speaking not true forms of screening), the major programmes have been directed either to young adults in primary care or to pregnant women in antenatal clinics. Only in the latter form of screening has sufficient data been collected to allow conclusions to be reached on the optimum mode of delivery. It seems very probable that when CF carrier screening passes into routine service, it will be the antenatal couple model that is used.     

Four-marker serum screening for Down's syndrome

The value of measuring the separate sub-units of human chorionic gonadotrophin (free α-hCG and free β-hCG) instead of total hCG together with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and unconjugated oestriol (uE₃) was examined to determine the effect on the performance of serum screening for Down's syndrome between 15 and 22 weeks of pregnancy. The study was based on stored serum samples relating to 75 singleton pregnancies with fetal Down's syndrome and 367 unaffected singleton pregnancies, matched for maternal age, gestational age, and duration of storage of the serum sample, supplemented by data from 970 white women with unaffected pregnancies. Using the four serum markers AFP, uE₃, free β-hCG, and free α-hCG, in addition to maternal age, 65 per cent of Down's syndrome pregnancies were detected for a 5 per cent false-positive rate compared with 59 per cent with the conventional triple test (AFP, uE₃, total hCG with maternal age). If gestation was based on an ultrasound scan examination, the detection rate was 72 per cent using the four serum markers compared with 67 per cent with the triple test. As an alternative illustration, if the detection rate was kept at 60 per cent and gestation was estimated by an ultrasound scan examination the four-marker test reduced the false-positive rate by one-third from 3 per cent using the triple test to 2 per cent with the four-marker test. Screening performance was hardly affected by adjusting marker levels for maternal weight. The four-marker test is, both from a medical and from a financial perspective, the most effective method of prenatal screening for Down's syndrome suitable for routine use.     

First-trimester alpha-fetoprotein screening for Down syndrome

Screening for Down syndrome and other chromosomal aneuploidies by biochemical parameters in maternal serum is well established for the second trimester. With screening as late as 16 weeks of gestation, the option of chorionic villus sampling (CVS) unfortunately is lost. In our study population, the maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (MSAFP) concentration was determined in 2471 women in the first trimester immediately prior to CVS. Although in this sample MSAFP tended to be lower in Down syndrome (DS) pregnancies than in pregnancies with a chromosomally normal fetus, at this early gestational age neither a fixed cut-off level of 0·5 multiples of the normal median (MOM) nor one of 0·6 MOM was suitable for identifying pregnancies at higher risk for DS. This also applied to trisomy 18, although on average MSAFP in trisomy 18 pregnancies was lower than in normal and DS pregnancies.     

Cell-free DNA screening and sex chromosome aneuploidies

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing is increasingly being used to screen pregnant women for fetal aneuploidies. This technology may also identify fetal sex and can be used to screen for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs). Physicians offering this screening will need to be prepared to offer comprehensive prenatal counseling about these disorders to an increasing number of patients. The purpose of this article is to consider the source of information to use for counseling, factors in parental decision-making, and the performance characteristics of cfDNA testing in screening for SCAs. Discordance between ultrasound examination and cfDNA results regarding fetal sex is also discussed. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Second trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormalities

The use of prenatal ultrasound has proven efficacious for the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. The first sonographic sign of Down syndrome, the thickened nuchal fold, was first described in 1985. Since that time, multiple sonographically-identified markers have been described as associated with Down syndrome. The genetic sonogram, involving a detailed search for sonographic signs of aneuploidy, can be used to both identify fetuses at high risk for aneuploidy and, when normal, can be used to decrease the risk for aneuploidy for a pregnancy when no sonographic markers are identified. Combining the genetic sonogram with maternal serum screening may be the best method of assessing aneuploidy risk for women who desire such an assessment in the second trimester. Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13, and triploidy are typically associated with sonographically identified abnormalities and have a high prenatal detection rate. The use of the described sonographic signs in low-risk women requires further investigation, however, patients at increased risk for aneuploidy due to advanced maternal age or abnormal serum screening can benefit from a genetic sonogram screening for sonographic signs of aneuploidy to adjust their baseline risk of an affected fetus. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

战略环境评价中战略筛选研究

战略环境评价是对战略及其替代方案的环境影响进行系统、正式的评价过程，在分析评价战略的类型和特点的基础上提出评价战略筛选的三个原则，即必要性、可行性和时效性原则；分析了五种具体的筛选方法；最后提出筛选工作程序。     

First trimester serum screening for down's syndrome

Screening for Down's Syndrome has been shown to be effective at 10 weeks of pregnancy. A multicentre study (the First trimester serum screening study) has shown that there are two biochemical markers of choice at this time in pregnancy, namely pregnancy associated placental protein A (PAPP-A) and the free β-sub-unit of human chorionic gonadotrophin (free β-hCG). When used together with maternal age these two biochemical markers have an estimated detection rate of 62% and a 5% false-positive rate. The results are consistent with those obtained from a systematic review of the world literature. Other markers are less predictive of Down's syndrome though there is still some uncertainty over the value of dimeric inhibin-A at 10 weeks of pregnancy. Nuchal translucency measurement, from an ultrasound examination performed at about 10 weeks of pregnancy, is associated with Down's syndrome and is emerging as an important potential screening marker. At present there is uncertainty over its quantitative performance and performance when combined with biochemical markers. The resolution of these issues is currently the subject of active research. Ten week screening for Down's syndrome is an advance that is now technically possible though there is still insufficient information to justify its use in routine screening practice.