Abstract
Prenatal aneuploidy screening changed significantly in 2012 when cell-free fetal deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was introduced as a noninvasive prenatal test. A noninvasive prenatal test detects cell free fragments of fetal DNA from the placenta circulating in maternal blood that coexist with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of maternal origin. Using next-generation sequencing, the noninvasive prenatal test compares maternal and fetal cfDNA ratios for chromosomes of interest (i.e., 21, 18, 13, X, and Y) to assess chromosomal aneuploidy. Compared to traditional screening using ultrasound and serum markers, the noninvasive prenatal test has superior test characteristics, including a higher detection rate and positive predictive value, and a lower false-positive rate. The noninvasive prenatal test is already used for primary screening in high-risk women and is rapidly expanding to all women. Given its increasing use, understanding the noninvasive prenatal test’s limitations is critical. Discordant results (i.e. noninvasive prenatal test is positive for aneuploidy with a normal fetal karyotype) can occur because of biological processes such as aneuploidy confined to the placenta, a vanished twin, maternal aneuploidy or maternal cancer. Use of the noninvasive prenatal test for screening beyond the most common aneuploidies is not recommended. The noninvasive prenatal test is a major advance in prenatal aneuploidy screening but it is not diagnostic and does not replace invasive testing (i.e. chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis) for confirmation of fetal chromosomal disorders.
Keywords: Cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA), Down syndrome, Fetus, Genetics, Noninvasive prenatal testing, Prenatal, Screening
Introduction
Prenatal genetic screening has changed dramatically in the last 5 years, driven primarily by the introduction of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) into clinical practice in 2012. Using next-generation sequencing technology, cfDNA in the maternal circulation can be sequenced and an assessment given for risk of common aneuploidies (trisomy 21 [Down syndrome], trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidies). Because of the excellent sensitivity of cfDNA screening, the rates of invasive diagnostic tests (i.e. chorionic villous sampling [CVS] and amniocentesis) have decreased significantly since 2012. In high-risk women cfDNA testing detects 98–99% of Down syndrome pregnancies, and less than 1% of women have a positive cfDNA screening result. Women with a positive cfDNA result are still advised to undergo a diagnostic procedure for confirmation of the screening result because false-positive cfDNA results can occur. Additionally, cfDNA testing is not yet validated for chromosomal or genetic abnormalities beyond trisomies 21, 13 and 18, and X and Y abnormalities. Thus diagnostic testing with CVS or amniocentesis is still recommended for women with fetal anomalies detected on prenatal ultrasound and for women who desire genetic screening beyond the common aneuploidies.
In this article, we review the current guidelines for prenatal aneuploidy screening, discuss cfDNA screening technology and test characteristics, examine the reasons for false-negative and false-positive cfDNA test results, and address current clinical dilemmas surrounding cfDNA testing.
Current guidelines for aneuploidy screening
The chances of having a live-born baby with Down syndrome increase significantly with increasing maternal age, with a 1 in 85 chance at age 40 [1]. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine(SMFM) recommend that all women be offered screening and diagnostic testing for aneuploidy, ideally in the first trimester [1].Options for aneuploidy screening include maternal serum screening as well as cell-free DNA. Since the introduction of cfDNA in 2012, ACOG and SMFM guidelines have suggested that aneuploidy screening with cfDNA is appropriate for high-risk women with singleton pregnancies [2]. High-risk women are defined as women ≥35 years old, those with fetal ultrasound findings suggestive of an increased aneuploidy risk, women with prior trisomy affected offspring, parents with increased risk of trisomy 13 or trisomy 21 offspring from a parental balanced Robertsonian translocation, and women with an increased aneuploidy risk based on first- or second-trimester screening results [1]. In 2015, SMFM updated its screening recommendations to add that if a low-risk woman requests cfDNA and has appropriate pretest counseling, cfDNA could be offered; however, routine screening methods remained the preferred option [3]. Additionally, the 2016 ACOG practice bulletin “Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy” discusses cfDNA as a method for aneuploidy screening without mention of maternal age [1]. Thus, while cfDNA is not yet recommended as a first-line screening option in low-risk women by ACOG or SMFM, cfDNA-based screening tests are being increasingly utilized in all-risk women and are anticipated to become first-line screening tests for all women in the near future.
Serum screening for Down syndrome
Traditionally, aneuploidy screening in pregnancy has relied on serum screening-based methods that analyze biochemical markers in maternal blood. With serum screening, ~5% of all pregnant women screen positive for Down syndrome [4, 5]. The positive predictive value (PPV) of serum screening is poor. First-trimester serum screening using nuchal translucency measurement and serum markers (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A] and free beta human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG]) has a 2–3% PPV, while second-trimester screening using either a triple or quad screen (alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], estriol, beta-hCG with inhibin for quad screen) has a 2% PPV [4, 5]. Combined first- and second-trimester screening (referred to as contingent screening, sequential screening or integrated screening, each with slight differences in testing protocol), all have slightly improved Down syndrome detection rates but still have only 4% PPV [4, 5] (Table 1). Given the low PPV of serum screening, there was a clear need for the development of a prenatal aneuploidy test with improved test characteristics. Recognition of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal circulation, in combination with improved genetic sequencing technology, would prove to be the key elements that catalyzed a major advance in prenatal aneuploidy screening.
Table 1.
Performance of prenatal aneuploidy screening tests in women >35 years old
2nd-trimester quad | 1st-trimester combined | Integrated screen | NIPT (cfDNA) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Detection rate | 80% | 90% | 95% | ≥98% |
Screen positive rate | 5% | 15% | 2% | 0.2% |
Positive predictive value | 2% | 2–3% | 4% | 80–99% |
Failure rate | <<1% | <1% | <1% | 0.3–3% |
Complexity | 1 blood draw | Ultrasound+ 1 blood draw | Ultrasound+ 2 blood draws | 1 blood draw |
cfDNA cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid, NIPT noninvasive prenatal test
Cell-free fetal deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology
It was first recognized in 1963 that cells can pass between the mother and fetus and can be extracted, quantified and studied [6]. Cell-free nucleic acids (fragments of DNA and ribonucleic acid [RNA] without cell membranes) were first noted in adult serum in 1948 [7]. These cell-free nucleic acids are associated with inflammatory diseases (i.e. lupus, glomerular nephritis, pancreatitis), rapid cell turnover (as seen in cancer), and tissue injury (as seen in trauma, stroke and myocardial infarct) and are thought to originate primarily from maternal hematopoietic cells [8–10]. This became relevant to pregnancy when it was reported that there is fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum, as evidenced by the presence of fetus-derived Y sequences in maternal blood [11]. Cell-free fetal DNA is thought to originate from the placenta (specifically, the rapidly dividing syncytiotrophoblasts that undergo apoptosis) because the genetic signatures in cell-free fetal DNA are specific for placental genes [12]. Although cell-free fetal DNA is derived from placental cells, these DNA fragments generally reflect the genetics of the fetus, as well, because the fetus and the placenta arise from the same embryo [12].
The fetal proportion of total cell-free DNA in the maternal blood (referred to as the “fetal fraction”) is variable, but on average there is ~10% from the fetus and the remainder is maternal [13]. Fetal cell-free DNA can be detected as early as 5–7 weeks of gestation and is rapidly cleared from the maternal circulation within hours [11, 14]. The half-life of fetal cfDNA is about 1 h in healthy women, and almost all fetal cfDNA is eliminated within 48h of delivery [15, 16].The fetal fraction is known to be altered by gestational age, maternal body mass index (BMI) and aneuploidy, while it is unaffected by several other clinical and demographic variables (Table 2) [17, 18].
Table 2.
Factors influencing the fetal fraction of cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in maternal blood (adapted from [1])
Affects fetal fraction | Does NOT affect fetal fraction |
---|---|
Gestational age | Maternal age |
BMI | Race |
Aneuploidy | Parity |
Mode of conception | |
Smoking | |
Placental volume |
BMI body mass index
With some uses of cell-free DNA, fetal free nucleic acids are distinguished from maternal free nucleic acids (e.g., discrepant Rh status, presence of sex-determining region Y); in others, analysis is done jointly and nucleic acids from each source are not delineated (e.g., aneuploidy) [1, 19]. All circulating cell-free DNA is fragmented, with fragment size length ranging 50–200 base pairs [20].
Cell-free DNA testing became possible by the development of and advances in next-generation sequencing, also referred to as massively parallel genomic sequencing. Samples are multiplexed using identifier codes, then millions of DNA fragments are sequenced simultaneously, with the first ~36 bases of each fragment sequenced [21, 22]. Initially, four commercial labs offered cell-free fetal DNA testing, with detection rates for Down syndrome of 99%, trisomy 18 of 97–99% and trisomy 13 of 80–99% [23]. False-positive rates were reported to be <0.1–1.3% and failure rates (i.e. uninformative or “no call” reports resulting from low fetal fraction, failed quality control, failed sequencing, etc.) were reported to be 0.9–3.0% [13]. Each commercial lab uses a slightly different approach for its cfDNA test. Some labs use counting technology for the specific chromosomes of interest (21, 13, 18, X and Y) and assign the number of reads belonging to each of the chromosomes to different buckets and assess for alterations from the expected number of reads in any given bucket, with lab-specific bioinformatic pipelines. Another lab uses counting of targeted sequences on the chromosomes of interest (i.e. 21, 13, 18, X and Y), while yet another uses single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to compare maternal SNPs (from maternal leukocyte DNA) to the SNPs in mixed maternal–fetal cfDNA and assess for shifts in the pattern of informative SNPs. The SNP-based cfDNA method cannot be used if the pregnancy is the result of an egg donor, if the mother has received a bone marrow or organ transplant, or if the mother is a gestational carrier [23].
Noninvasive prenatal testing utilizing cell-free fetal DNA for Down syndrome (trisomy 21) screening is a significant advance over serum screening in women >35 years old because it has the highest detection rate (99% vs. 80–95%), lowest screen-positive rate (0.2% vs. 2–15%), and highest positive predictive value (80–99% vs. 2–4%) [1]. Additionally, the noninvasive prenatal test requires only one blood draw, which can be performed any time after 10 weeks of gestation. One minor drawback is that the overall rate of test failure is slightly higher for the noninvasive prenatal test (0.3– 3% vs. <1% for serum screening; Table 1) [23].
When combined, the detection rate for the most common autosomal aneuploidies (i.e. trisomies 21, 18 and 13) using the noninvasive prenatal test is 97% with a false-positive rate of 1.25% [23, 24]. For these aneuploidies, the noninvasive prenatal test is the most sensitive screening test available. Sensitivity is highest for trisomy 21, with a detection rate of 98.6% and false-positive rate of 1.01%. The detection rates for trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 are slightly lower, with a trisomy 18 detection rate of 94.9% and false-positive rate of 0.14%, and a trisomy 13 detection rate of 91.3% and false-positive rate of 0.14% [23, 24], accounting for “no call” results and for successful subsequent repeat tests. Detection rates are lower for the sex chromosome aneuploidies than for the autosomal aneuploidies, with a detection rate of 90.3% for 45,X and a detection rate of 93% for 47,XXY, 47,XYYand 47,XXX [24]. Also, failure rates for sex chromosome aneuploidies are higher, ranging 4–7% [24–27].
Comparison of noninvasive prenatal testing in high- and low-risk populations
While some low-risk women are already utilizing the noninvasive prenatal test, it has not been explicitly endorsed for primary Down syndrome screening in low-risk women for many reasons, including its higher cost, issues with the availability of appropriate pre- and post-test genetic counseling, and concerns about pregnancy termination after a positive test result without confirmatory diagnostic testing [3]. Currently, more low-risk women receive the noninvasive prenatal test as an advanced screen following abnormal serum screening or detection of a fetal abnormality. This strategy is useful for reducing the number of normal fetuses lost to invasive procedures; the screen positive rate of the noninvasive prenatal test is much lower than that of serum screening and the positive predictive value of a noninvasive prenatal test is much higher (Table 1) [23]. However the use of the noninvasive prenatal test as an advanced screen does not improve the overall detection rate of Down syndrome because of the lower detection rate of serum screening (80–90% vs. ≥98% for the noninvasive prenatal test). This means that when serum screening is used as the primary screen, up to 20% of fetuses with Down syndrome fail to be screen-positive and, consequently, these pregnancies do not have advanced screening with noninvasive prenatal test [23].
There has also been hesitation to switch to the noninvasive prenatal test for all women because maternal serum screening provides additional information on other fetal disorders that would be lost if only the noninvasive prenatal test were performed. Of women who screen positive on maternal serum screening and have fetal chromosomal abnormalities detected with subsequent invasive testing, 17–23% have fetal chromosomal disorders that would be missed by current noninvasive prenatal test [28, 29]. The chromosomal abnormalities missed by the noninvasive prenatal test include smaller deletions and duplications, other aneuploidies, mosaicism and triploidy/tetraploidy. Overall there is an approximately 2% risk of the fetus having a karyotypic abnormality not detected by the noninvasive prenatal test but identified on maternal serum screening [28]. Some of these fetuses would be anticipated to have identifiable ultrasound anomalies but these fetal abnormalities might not be seen until the 18-week fetal survey.
When the noninvasive prenatal test is used in low-risk women, it is important to remember that the PPV of the test will be lower because the PPV depends on the a priori risk of the condition in a given population. Thus for women <35 years old, the PPV may be ~50% overall; however this is significantly higher than the serum screening PPV of 2–4%. In studies that have examined the noninvasive prenatal test in all-risk women, the PPV ranges 45–91% (vs. a PPV of 2.4–4.2% for serum screening) [30, 31]. Additionally, the overall false-positive rate for trisomies 13 and 18 is higher in clinical practice than indicated by many of the commercial companies [32]. In contrast to the autosomal aneuploidies, the PPV for Turner syndrome (45,X) using the noninvasive prenatal test is expected to be similar in younger and older women because Turner syndrome is not associated with maternal age [33].
Reasons for false-positive and false-negative noninvasive prenatal test results
False positives
The noninvasive prenatal test’s false-positive rate for Down syndrome is 0.1% (meaning that the cfDNA test is positive for an abnormality but the fetus is later determined to be unaffected) [2]. Most false positives result from the presence of increased chromosome 21-specific DNA, whose origin does not reflect the chromosome composition of the fetus in the ongoing pregnancy. Possible origins of this increased DNA include the placenta (from confined placental mosaicism), a vanishing twin, maternal mosaicism and other maternal medical conditions.
Confined placental mosaicism
Confined placental mosaicism is defined as a pregnancy with a normal fetal karyotype and a placenta that has both normal and aneuploid cell lines. Approximately 1–2% of all pregnancies at 10–12 weeks have confined placental mosaicism [34]. The primary source of fetal cfDNA in the maternal circulation is placental cells (specifically originating from the rapidly dividing syncytiotrophoblasts), and thus confined placental mosaicism can lead the cfDNA test to be positive when the placenta is aneuploid but the fetus is euploid. Confined placental mosaicism is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including intrauterine growth restriction and the possibility of uniparental disomy in the fetus as a result of trisomy rescue [35–37]. Many cases of confined placental mosaicism leading to false-positive noninvasive prenatal test results have been reported but the overall prevalence has not been systematically determined.
Vanishing twins
Approximately 12–15% of all pregnancies begin as a twin gestation and, of these twins, up to 20–30% spontaneously reduce to a singleton. It has been estimated that 1–3% of singletons originate from a pregnancy with a vanished twin [38, 39]. Vanishing twins have been documented as the cause of discordant noninvasive prenatal test results, including discordant trisomy 13 results and detection of two paternal haplotypes (using the single-nucleotide-polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal test methodology) [35, 40]. The positive noninvasive prenatal test is a result of the placenta of the vanished twin continuing to shed DNA into the maternal circulation as fragments of cfDNA following the demise. If the demise of the vanished twin occurs very early in gestation, the twin pregnancy might have never been clinically detected and, consequently, will not be recognized as a source of a false-positive noninvasive prenatal test result.
Maternal chromosomal abnormalities
Because most noninvasive prenatal test technologies assess maternal and fetal cfDNA together, the test assumes that the maternal karyotype is normal. However results can be positive because of unrecognized sex chromosome aneuploidy in the mother. Most commonly, this is either maternal mosaic 45,X/ 46,XX or maternal 47,XXX [41–43]. Even women who were born with normal 46,XX karyotype have a proportion of their cells lose an X chromosome over time, leading to some 45,X cells [43, 44]. Overall 8.6% of positive noninvasive prenatal test results for sex chromosome aneuploidy are from maternal sex chromosome mosaicism [43]. The presence of maternal mosaicism can be confirmed by performing a karyotype on a maternal peripheral blood sample [44]. In addition to maternal aneuploidy, maternal copy number variants can lead to false-positive noninvasive prenatal test results, especially when there are larger maternal duplications on the chromosomes of interest. For example, maternal duplications on chromosome 18 have led to false-positive results for trisomy 18 [45].
Maternal cancer
Women with known or undiagnosed cancer can have circulating cfDNA in their peripheral blood with one or several chromosomal alterations. This can lead their noninvasive prenatal test to return positive for multiple chromosome abnormalities or can demonstrate widespread genomic imbalance. This type of result is observed in approximately 0.03% of all noninvasive prenatal test screens [46]. In these cases follow-up diagnostic testing on the fetus reveals a normal fetal karyotype but the pregnant woman is then found to have an undiagnosed malignancy. Of all women with multiple chromosomal abnormalities on noninvasive prenatal test results and euploid fetus on diagnostic testing, approximately 18% are found to have an undiagnosed malignancy [46–48]. Documented types of maternal malignancies leading to abnormal noninvasive prenatal test results include breast, leukemia, lymphoma, colorectal, anal and neuroendocrine. While standard management recommendations are lacking for follow-up after a woman receives a noninvasive prenatal test result with multiple chromosomal abnormalities and has a confirmed euploid fetus, an oncology referral seems prudent.
Maternal transplant recipients
If a pregnant woman has received a bone marrow or organ transplant from a male donor, noninvasive prenatal test results can indicate a male fetus (due to detection of Y chromosome material from the transplant) even when the fetus is actually a female [49]. Even a recent blood transfusion (within the last 4 weeks) from a male donor can lead to indication of a male fetus on noninvasive prenatal test when the fetus is actually a female [50]. Given this, a detailed medical history should be obtained prior to performing cfDNA-based prenatal aneuploidy screening on any patient.
Other issues
False-positive results can also be caused by statistical chance or technical issues, such as incorrect sample labeling and other lab-based errors in running the test.
False negatives
The noninvasive prenatal test’s false-negative rate for Down syndrome is thought to be quite low (meaning that the cfDNA test indicates no chromosomal abnormality but the fetus is affected). While it is difficult to ascertain the true rate of these false-negative results, false-negatives cases have been reported for all of the common aneuploidies [51–53]. False-negative results are more common when the fetal fraction of cfDNA is low and when placental mosaicism is present.
Most laboratories that perform cfDNA screening quantify the fetal fraction, and some specify the fetal fraction on the reported results; a cutoff of ≤4% fetal fraction is generally used. Borderline fetal fractions of 4–5% increase the risk of failing to detect an aneuploidy because there is only a small difference between the observed and expected amounts of DNA fragments from the aneuploid chromosome. Overall there are four main reasons for low fetal fraction: early gestational age, maternal obesity, fetal aneuploidy, and issues with sample quality.
Early gestational age
The fetal fraction is much lower prior to 10 weeks’ gestation. At 10 weeks’ gestation, the fetal fraction is ~13% of the total cfDNA and increases throughout the rest of gestation [22, 54, 55]. Thus if a woman’s estimated gestational age is overestimated and noninvasive prenatal test is sent prior to 10 weeks’ gestation, the noninvasive prenatal test is likely to have a lower fetal fraction.
Maternal obesity
The higher the maternal body mass index (BMI) is, the lower the fetal fraction. The lower fetal fraction is thought to result from dilutional effects from the larger maternal plasma volume of obese women, as well as increased maternal cfDNA secondary to increased inflammation. Both lead to lower fetal fraction and an increased rate of both false-negative and unreportable results [13, 22]. In contrast to the noninvasive prenatal test, when serum analyte screening is performed, maternal weight is adjusted for mathematically. Overall, obese women (weighing >180 lb) have a 3–4-fold increased risk of having a failed or inaccurate cfDNA result [13]. Although women with an increased BMI can still have a noninvasive prenatal test, they should be counseled about the possibilities of test failure and false-negative results when informed consent is obtained.
Fetal aneuploidy
Fetuses with trisomy 13 and trisomy18 who survive pregnancy and are live born have been shown to have mosaicism in their placentas, meaning that there are both euploid and aneuploid cell lines present in the placenta [56]. In these aneuploid pregnancies, up to 40% of the placenta can have a normal euploid karyotype. Additionally, the fetal fraction of cfDNA is decreased in some aneuploid pregnancies compared to euploid pregnancies [18]. Both of these factors can lead to a false-negative or unreportable noninvasive prenatal test in aneuploid pregnancies. Regarding specific aneuploidies, the fetal fraction is lower in pregnancies with trisomies 13 and 18, as well as monosomy X, and is higher in pregnancies with Down syndrome (trisomy 21) [57]. Specifically, at 10–20 weeks of gestation pregnancies with trisomy 18 have an average 9% fetal fraction, compared with an average 13% in euploid pregnancies [57]. In trisomy 21 pregnancies, the average fetal fraction is 15%, and significant placental mosaicism (as observed in trisomies 13 and 18 pregnancies) has not been reported [56, 58]. Pregnancies with trisomy 13 are also more difficult to detect by some noninvasive prenatal test methodologies because chromosome 13 is technically more challenging to sequence; this is because of the low gene density of chromosome 13 and resultant low G+C content compared to other autosomes [59]. Triploid pregnancies are associated with very low fetal fractions [58, 60], leading to frequent noninvasive prenatal test failures in these pregnancies.
Sample quality issues
If a few white blood cells degrade from the maternal blood, the fraction of maternal cfDNA in a noninvasive prenatal test sample is increased and dilutes the fraction of fetal cfDNA. To prevent this complication, maternal specimens for noninvasive prenatal tests must be appropriately collected and stored to prevent DNA degradation.
Clinical dilemmas
What should be done with no-call results?
Overall, approximately 1–5% of all noninvasive prenatal test specimens have no reportable result. Up to 50% of these are because the fetal fraction is below an acceptable level (i.e. <4%) [23]. Other failures are from insufficient numbers of cfDNA fragments sequenced or aligned to reference chromosomes. As discussed, women with a high BMI have lower fetal fraction, leading to more no-call results in this group. The percentage of no-call results increases with the degree of obesity, with 20% of women greater than 250 lb and 50% of women greater than 350 lb having a no-call result [13, 22]. When the first sample leads to a no-call result, a repeat sample leads to a reportable result in ~60% of cases. It is important to note that there is an increased risk of aneuploidy with a no-call result (as high as 20% of all samples with no result are karyotypically abnormal) [18, 61, 62]. Women with failed noninvasive prenatal test have several options: they can have a repeat test, they can proceed with serum screening, or they can have an invasive procedure. Given the increased risk of aneuploidy in pregnancies with failed noninvasive prenatal test, it is reasonable to encourage diagnostic testing as follow-up.
What should be done with twin pregnancies?
Some companies offer use of noninvasive prenatal test in twins, although there are fewer data for cfDNA test performance in twin pregnancies than singleton pregnancies. Available data suggest that the fetal fraction is lower and failure rate is higher in twin vs. singleton pregnancies [63, 64]. Although the mechanism is not clear, the noninvasive prenatal test failure rate is especially increased in pregnancies that occurred as a result of in vitro fertilization [63, 64]. Specific data on the detection rate of aneuploidy in twin pregnancies are still lacking because of the low numbers of aneuploid twins in the studies assessing noninvasive prenatal test performance in twins.
Should noninvasive prenatal testing be expanded beyond the common aneuploidies?
Most companies offering the noninvasive prenatal test now include the option of testing for microdeletion and microduplication syndromes. These syndromes are of clinical importance because, taken together, the five most common occur in approximately 1 in every 1,000 neonates, the most frequent of which is 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (i.e., DiGeorge syndrome) [65]. The use of cfDNA-based technology to screen for microdeletions and microduplications is an emerging technology without significant clinical validation and is not currently supported by either ACOG or SMFM [1, 66–69]. Specifically, the high reported rate of both false-positive and false-negative noninvasive prenatal test results for subchromosomal abnormalities precludes the clinical utility of cfDNA-based screening for these disorders at this time. Additionally, one testing platform now offers cfDNA-based chromosome-wide screening up to a 7 megabase pair (Mb) level (MaterniT GENOME; Sequenom, San Diego, CA), which is at the resolution most equivalent to a noninvasive karyotype. There has been no independent clinical validation of this chromosome-wide noninvasive prenatal test and sensitivity and specificity remain unknown [70]; given these limitations, this chromosome-wide noninvasive prenatal test is also not currently endorsed by ACOG or SMFM.
What is the current role for noninvasive prenatal testing?
Cell-free DNA-based aneuploidy tests are appropriate as first-line screening for trisomy 21 in women of advanced maternal age (>35 years old) and other women who qualify as high-risk [1]. The noninvasive prenatal test has been validated in singletons, but there are much fewer data on its performance in twins. The noninvasive prenatal test is not appropriate for screening microdeletion or microduplication syndromes, and it is not a replacement for diagnostic testing (i.e. CVS or amniocentesis). Diagnostic testing should be recommended following the detection of fetal anomalies on prenatal ultrasound. While the noninvasive prenatal test has not been specifically endorsed as a first-line screening test for all-risk women, SMFM advises that low-risk patients can elect cfDNA-based tests for aneuploidy screening. Because there are increasing published data on the performance of the noninvasive prenatal test in all-risk women, it could soon become the first-line screening test for all women.
What is the role for the noninvasive prenatal test in women <35 years old?
The use of the noninvasive prenatal test for Down syndrome screening is appealing as a first-line test for all women for many reasons. Specifically, it has higher sensitivity, a very low rate of false positives and a higher PPV than standard screening with measurement of nuchal translucency and biochemical analytes [71]. The noninvasive prenatal test involves only one blood test and can be performed anytime starting at 10 weeks of gestation. Caution is still advised because the test’s PPV depends on the incidence of the condition, and thus PPV is lower in all-risk women than in the high-risk population. Additionally, there is concern about eliminating Down syndrome screening based on serum analytes because additional conditions beyond aneuploidy can be detected with serum screening (e.g., elevated AFP from open neural tube defects, very low estriol associated with Smith Lemli–Opitz syndrome) [1]. If all chromosome abnormalities are considered, serum screening has a higher overall detection rate for chromosomal abnormalities than the noninvasive prenatal test in all-risk women [72].This information would be lost if only the noninvasive prenatal test were performed. Moreover, cost efficacy of the noninvasive prenatal test versus traditional serum screening has not been demonstrated; however the cost differential has been reduced dramatically by rapidly decreasing sequencing costs.
Even if the noninvasive prenatal test would become the first-line aneuploidy screening test in all-risk women, it would not replace the need for fetal ultrasound and invasive testing when fetal anomalies are detected. Despite increased sensitivity and PPV, the noninvasive prenatal test is still a screening test, not a diagnostic test. The noninvasive prenatal test has demonstrated sensitivity for major aneuploidies (i.e. trisomies 13, 18 and 21, as well as sex chromosome aneuploidies), but these abnormalities only account for ~80% of the abnormal karyotypes [28]. The value of ultrasound screening for fetal anomalies and detection of other fetal syndromes has not changed and should not be confused with Down syndrome screening. The detection of fetal anomalies on prenatal ultrasound should prompt a genetic counseling referral and offer of diagnostic testing (i.e. CVS or amniocentesis). The noninvasive prenatal test is not recommended as the first-line test in this setting [1, 2].
Follow-up after noninvasive prenatal testing
Women with a screen-positive noninvasive prenatal test result should be offered invasive testing. Because CVS is also a sample of placental cells, some advocate waiting for amniocentesis (after 15 weeks of gestation) to obtain a true sample of the fetal genotype. However if the result is time-sensitive, offering a CVS with subsequent analysis of cultured cells is a reasonable option [73]. In general women with a screen-negative noninvasive prenatal test result are not offered follow-up testing. However, women who are diagnosed with a fetal anomaly at 18 weeks (after negative noninvasive prenatal test earlier in the pregnancy) should be offered diagnostic testing [1, 2].
Management of Down syndrome pregnancies
Initially when the noninvasive prenatal test was released, there was concern that the number of terminations for pregnancies with Down syndrome would increase because of improved trisomy 21 detection by this test. However recent data suggest that termination rates for pregnancies with trisomy 21 are decreasing [74]. At our institution women who have the noninvasive prenatal test and test positive for trisomy 21 have the lowest termination rate when compared with women who undergo invasive tests and have a positive trisomy 21 result. Specifically, the percentage of women who terminate after a positive trisomy 21 result is 94% with CVS, 71% with amniocentesis and 63% with the noninvasive prenatal test [75]. Thus, women who choose the noninvasive prenatal test might be the least likely to terminate even with a positive result.
For women with known Down syndrome pregnancies, many questions arise regarding the meaning of an increased nuchal translucency on first-trimester ultrasound. In trisomy 21 pregnancies with an increased nuchal translucency, most increased nuchal translucencies resolve by the second trimester and, beyond the association with trisomy 21, the increased nuchal translucency is not predictive of whether the trisomy 21 pregnancy has a concurrent cardiac anomaly or might end in miscarriage [76, 77]. Therefore, the increased nuchal translucency should just be considered a marker of trisomy 21 in these pregnancies but not predictive of other outcomes.
The question frequently arises as to how likely pregnancy loss is following the diagnosis of trisomy 21. The rate of loss in trisomy 21 pregnancies is about 10% in the timeframe between CVS and amniocentesis and about 20% in the timeframe from amniocentesis to term [78]. Additionally, the rate of stillbirth is increased in trisomy 21 pregnancies [78]. Overall ~25% of trisomy 21 pregnancies have growth restriction, which is independent of fetal anomalies and maternal age [79]. Atour institution, in trisomy 21 pregnancies with ongoing fetal surveillance, 35% of women with trisomy 21 pregnancies were delivered for new onset non-reassuring testing; the non-reassuring testing was independent of fetal anomalies, growth restriction and maternal age [80].
At the time of delivery, if only the noninvasive prenatal test (but not diagnostic testing) has been done in the antepartum period and was positive for trisomy 21, the appropriate newborn genetic testing is a fetal karyotype, not microarray, because karyotyping allows for detection of unbalanced translocations that result in Down syndrome. While microarray detects the presence of increased copies of chromosome 21, it does not provide information on the arrangement of chromosomes. If the karyotype reveals that trisomy 21 is the result of an unbalanced translocation (3–4% of Down syndrome pregnancies [81, 82]), follow-up parental testing should be performed to evaluate for balanced maternal or paternal translocations. Such testing allows for appropriate counseling on recurrence risk.
Implications of cell-free DNA for prenatal imaging
Since the advent of cfDNA for aneuploidy screening, there has been increasing debate surrounding the utility of nuchal translucency assessment in the first trimester. SMFM recently released guidelines for the use of ultrasound imaging in women who have undergone cfDNA screening [69]. The guidelines suggest that in women with a negative cfDNA result, ultrasound at 11–14 weeks specifically for the purpose of nuchal translucency assessment is not indicated; however first-trimester ultrasound remains important for determining viability and number of fetuses, confirming gestational age and identifying major fetal anomalies. Additionally, in women with negative cfDNA, the presence of an isolated soft marker (e.g., choroid plexus cyst, echogenic intracardiac focus) should be considered a normal variant and diagnostic testing should not be recommended for this indication [69]. In contrast, women with a fetal structural abnormality should be offered diagnostic testing with chromosomal microarray (performed on CVS or amniocentesis sample) even in the setting of a negative cfDNA screening result [69].
Resources for cell-free DNA screening
Many resources surrounding cell-free DNA screening are available and summarized on the ACOG website: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/CommitteeOpinions/Committee-on-Genetics/Cell-free-DNA-Screeningfor-Fetal-Aneuploidy/More-Information.
Conclusion
Given the complexities of cfDNA screening, including the possibility both false-negative and false-positive results (as well as incidental findings), appropriate genetic counseling should be provided prior to testing and following abnormal or failed testing results. It is essential that patients be counseled about differences between screening and diagnostic tests. In particular, women should be advised that the noninvasive prenatal test has been validated as screening for trisomies 13, 18 and 21, as well as sex chromosome aneuploidies; however data are limited on screening for other conditions including other chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletion and microduplication syndromes. If women desire more detailed information about all potential chromosomal abnormalities, they should be encouraged to pursue diagnostic testing (i.e. either amniocentesis or CVS) and chromosomal microarray. Diagnostic testing should be encouraged as the next step in evaluation when there are fetal anomalies. Ultimately genetic screening is optional and is at the discretion of each individual patient.
Footnotes
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest None.
References
- 1.Bianchi DW, Wataganara T, Lapaire O et al. (2006) Fetal nucleic acids in maternal body fluids: an update. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1075: 63–73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2016) Practice bulletin no. 163: screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 127:e123–e137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2015) Committee opinion, no. 640, cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 126:e31–e37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Publications Committee (2015) SMFM statement: clarification of recommendations regarding cell-free DNA aneuploidy screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213:753–754 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH et al. (2005) First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. N Engl J Med 353:2001–2011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cuckle HS, Malone FD, Wright D et al. (2008) Contingent screening for Down syndrome — results from the FaSTER trial. Prenat Diagn 28:89–94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Desai RG, Creger WP (1963) Maternofetal passage of leukocytes and platelets in man. Blood 21:665–673 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mandel P, Metais P (1948) Les acides nucléiques du plasma sanguin chez l’homme. [The nucleic acids of blood plasma in humans]. C R Seances Soc Biol Fil 142:241–243 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cai X, Janku F, Zhan Q, Fan J-B (2015) Accessing genetic information with liquid biopsies. Trends Genet 31:564–575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Truszewska A, Foroncewicz B, Pączek L (2016) The role and diagnostic value of cell-free DNA in systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 35:330–336 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Volik S, Alcaide M, Morin RD, Collins C (2016) Cell-free DNA (cfDNA): clinical significance and utility in cancer shaped by emerging technologies. Mol Cancer Res 14:898–908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF et al. (1997) Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 350:485–487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Maron JL, Bianchi DW (2007) Prenatal diagnosis using cell-free nucleic acids in maternal body fluids: a decade of progress. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 145C:5–17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Canick JA, Palomaki GE, Kloza EM et al. (2013) The impact of maternal plasma DNA fetal fraction on next generation sequencing tests for common fetal aneuploidies. Prenat Diagn 33:667–674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Guibert J, Benachi A, Grebille A-G et al. (2003) Kinetics of SRY gene appearance in maternal serum: detection by real time PCR in early pregnancy after assisted reproductive technique. Hum Reprod 18:1733–1736 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lo YM, Zhang J, Leung TN et al. (1999) Rapid clearance of fetal DNA from maternal plasma. Am J Hum Genet 64:218–224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Yu SCY, Lee SWY, Jiang P et al. (2013) High-resolution profiling of fetal DNA clearance from maternal plasma by massively parallel sequencing. Clin Chem 59:1228–1237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pergament E, Cuckle H, Zimmermann B et al. (2014) Single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening in a high-risk and low-risk cohort. Obstet Gynecol 124:210–218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chitty LS, Finning K, Wade A et al. (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of routine antenatal determination of fetal RHD status across gestation: population based cohort study. BMJ 349:g5243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chan KCA, Zhang J, Hui ABY et al. (2004) Size distributions of maternal and fetal DNA in maternal plasma. Clin Chem 50:88–92 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Chiu RWK, Chan KCA, Gao Y et al. (2008) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:20458–20463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM et al. (2011) DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med 13:913–920 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Palomaki GE, Messerlian GM, Halliday JV (2017) Prenatal screening for common aneuploidies using cell-free DNA. In: Wilkins-Haug L (ed) UpToDate. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/prenatal-screening-for-common-aneuploidies-using-cell-free-dna. Accessed 10 Jan 2017 [Google Scholar]
- 24.Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R et al. (2015) Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:249–266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mazloom AR, Džakula Ž, Oeth P et al. (2013) Noninvasive prenatal detection of sex chromosomal aneuploidies by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from maternal plasma. Prenat Diagn 33:591–597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Samango-Sprouse C, Banjevic M, Ryan A et al. (2013) SNP-based non-invasive prenatal testing detects sex chromosome aneuploidies with high accuracy. Prenat Diagn 33:643–649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hooks J, Wolfberg AJ, Wang ET et al. (2014) Non-invasive risk assessment of fetal sex chromosome aneuploidy through directed analysis and incorporation of fetal fraction. Prenat Diagn 34:496–499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Norton ME, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ (2014) Chromosome abnormalities detected by current prenatal screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol 124:979–986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Petersen OB, Vogel I, Ekelund C et al. (2014) Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:265–271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Song Y, Liu C, Qi H et al. (2013) Noninvasive prenatal testing of fetal aneuploidies by massively parallel sequencing in a prospective Chinese population. Prenat Diagn 33:700–706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J et al. (2014) DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med 370: 799–808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Mennuti MT, Cherry AM, Morrissette JJD, Dugoff L (2013) Is it time to sound an alarm about false-positive cell-free DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 209:415–419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hook EB, Warburton D (2014) Turner syndrome revisited: review of new data supports the hypothesis that all viable 45,X cases are cryptic mosaics with a rescue cell line, implying an origin by mitotic loss. Hum Genet 133:417–424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Johnson A, Wapner RJ (1997) Mosaicism: implications for postnatal outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 9:126–135 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Futch T, Spinosa J, Bhatt S et al. (2013) Initial clinical laboratory experience in noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy from maternal plasma DNA samples. Prenat Diagn 33:569–574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Hall AL, Drendel HM, Verbrugge JL et al. (2013) Positive cell-free fetal DNA testing for trisomy 13 reveals confined placental mosaicism. Genet Med 15:729–732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Pan M, Li FT, Li Y et al. (2013) 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. Prenat Diagn 33:598–601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Landy HJ, Keith LG (1998) The vanishing twin: a review. Hum Reprod Update 4:177–183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Benson CB, Doubilet PM, Laks MP (1993) Outcome of twin gestations following sonographic demonstration of two heart beats in the first trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 3:343–345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.McAdoo S, Savage M, Hall MP et al. (2013, October) a single nucleotide polymorphism-based approach to non-invasive prenatal testing identifies lingering cell-free fetal DNA in pregnancies with vanishing twins. Poster presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, Boston [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Gil M et al. (2013) Validation of targeted sequencing of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for noninvasive prenatal detection of aneuploidy of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y. Prenat Diagn 33:575–579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Lau TK, Jiang FM, Stevenson RJ et al. (2013) Secondary findings from non-invasive prenatal testing for common fetal aneuploidies by whole genome sequencing as a clinical service. Prenat Diagn 33: 602–608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Wang Y, Chen Y, Tian F et al. (2014) Maternal mosaicism is a significant contributor to discordant sex chromosomal aneuploidies associated with noninvasive prenatal testing. Clin Chem 60:251–259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Stone JF, Sandberg AA (1995) Sex chromosome aneuploidy and aging. Mutat Res 338:107–113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Snyder MW, Simmons LE, Kitzman JO et al. (2015) Copy-number variation and false positive prenatal aneuploidy screening results. N Engl J Med 372:1639–1645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Bianchi DW, Chudova D, Sehnert AJ et al. (2015) Noninvasive prenatal testing and incidental detection of occult maternal malignancies. JAMA 314:162–169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Osborne CM, Hardisty E, Devers P et al. (2013) Discordant noninvasive prenatal testing results in a patient subsequently diagnosed with metastatic disease. Prenat Diagn 33:609–611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Snyder HL, Curnow KJ, Bhatt S et al. (2016) Follow-up of multiple aneuploidies and single monosomies detected by noninvasive prenatal testing: implications for management and counseling. Prenat Diagn 36:203–209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Bianchi DW, Parsa S, Bhatt S et al. (2015) Fetal sex chromosome testing by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: clinical laboratory experience and biology. Obstet Gynecol 125:375–382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL et al. (2016) Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 18:1056–1065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Zhang H, Gao Y, Jiang F et al. (2015) Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146,958 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:530–538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Hochstenbach R, Page-Christiaens GCML, van Oppen ACC et al. (2015) Unexplained false negative results in noninvasive prenatal testing: two cases involving trisomies 13 and 18. Case Rep Genet 2015:926545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Smith M, Lewis KM, Holmes A et al. (2014) A case of false negative NIPT for Down syndrome — lessons learned. Case Rep Genet 2014:823504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Chiu RWK, Akolekar R, Zheng YWL et al. (2011) Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. BMJ 342:c7401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Nygren AOH, Dean J, Jensen TJ et al. (2010) Quantification of fetal DNA by use of methylation-based DNA discrimination. Clin Chem 56:1627–1635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Kalousek DK, Barrett IJ, McGillivray BC (1989) Placental mosaicism and intrauterine survival of trisomies 13 and 18. Am J Hum Genet 44:338–343 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Rava RP, Srinivasan A, Sehnert AJ et al. (2014) Circulating fetal cell-free DNA fractions differ in autosomal aneuploidies and monosomy X. Clin Chem 60:243–250 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM et al. (2015) Circulating cell free DNA testing: are some test failures informative? Prenat Diagn 35:289–293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Dunham A, Matthews LH, Burton J et al. (2004) The DNA sequence and analysis of human chromosome 13. Nature 428:522–528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, del Mar GM et al. (2014) Prenatal detection of fetal triploidy from cell-free DNA testing in maternal blood. Fetal Diagn Ther 35:212–217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon LCY et al. (2013) Fetal fraction in maternal plasma cell-free DNA at 11–13 weeks’ gestation: relation to maternal and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41: 26–32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Williams J 3rd, Rad S, Beauchamp S et al. (2015) Utilization of noninvasive prenatal testing: impact on referrals for diagnostic testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213:102.e1–102.e6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Bevilacqua E, Gil MM, Nicolaides KH et al. (2015) Performance of screening for aneuploidies by cell-free DNA analysis of maternal blood in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:61–66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Sarno L, Revello R, Hanson E et al. (2016) Prospective first-trimester screening for trisomies by cell-free DNA testing of maternal blood in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:705–711 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Haque IS, Lazarin GA, Kang HP et al. (2016) Modeled fetal risk of genetic diseases identified by expanded carrier screening. JAMA 316:734–742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Allyse M, Chandrasekharan S (2015) Too much, too soon?: commercial provision of noninvasive prenatal screening for subchromosomal abnormalities and beyond. Genet Med 17:958–961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Vora NL, BM OB (2014) Noninvasive prenatal testing for microdeletion syndromes and expanded trisomies: proceed with caution. Obstet Gynecol 123:1097–1099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Gross SJ, Stosic M, McDonald-McGinn DM et al. (2016) Clinical experience with single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:177–183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), Norton ME, Biggio JR et al. (2017) The role of ultrasound in women who undergo cell-free DNA screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:B2–B7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Lefkowitz RB, Tynan JA, Liu T et al. (2016) Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215:227.e1–227.e16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK et al. (2015) Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 372:1589–1597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Norton ME, Baer RJ, Wapner RJ et al. (2016) Cell-free DNA vs sequential screening for the detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:727.e1–727.e6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Ledbetter DH, Zachary JM, Simpson JL et al. (1992) Cytogenetic results from the U.S. collaborative study on CVS. Prenat Diagn 12: 317–345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.de Graaf G, Buckley F, Skotko BG (2015) Estimates of the live births, natural losses, and elective terminations with Down syndrome in the United States. Am J Med Genet A 167A:756–767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Reimers RM, Dobson L, Hanmer K et al. (2016) Pregnancy outcomes for trisomy 21 following NIPT, CVS, and amniocentesis. In: proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:S320 [Google Scholar]
- 76.Comstock CH, Malone FD, Ball RH et al. (2006) Is there a nuchal translucency millimeter measurement above which there is no added benefit from first trimester serum screening? Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:843–847 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Pandya PP, Snijders RJ, Johnson S et al. (1995) Natural history of trisomy 21 fetuses with increased nuchal translucency thickness. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5:381–383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Savva GM, Morris JK, Mutton DE et al. (2006) Maternal age-specific fetal loss rates in Down syndrome pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 26:499–504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Wessels MW, Los FJ, Frohn-Mulder IME et al. (2003) Poor outcome in Down syndrome fetuses with cardiac anomalies or growth retardation. Am J Med Genet A 116A:147–151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Guseh SH, Little SE, Bennett K et al. (2017) Antepartum management and obstetric outcomes among pregnancies with Down syndrome from diagnosis to delivery. Prenat Diagn. doi: 10.1002/pd.5054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Mutton D, Alberman E, Hook EB (1996) Cytogenetic and epidemiological findings in Down syndrome, England and Wales 1989 to 1993. National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register and the Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists. J Med Genet 33:387–394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Morris JK, Alberman E, Mutton D (2012) Cytogenetic and epidemiological findings in Down syndrome: England and Wales 1989–2009. Am J Med Genet A 158A:1151–1157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]