Objective
To evaluate whether targeted sequencing and relative mutation dosage can be used to diagnose correctly inheritance of maternal β‐thalassaemia mutations in cell‐free DNA.
Design
Feasibility ...study using samples collected in a prenatal clinic.
Setting
South East Asia.
Population
Couples where both partners were known to be carriers of one of four common β‐thalassaemia mutations or an HbE mutation, and therefore at risk of carrying a fetus affected with β‐thalassaemia.
Methods
49 samples previously identified as having inherited a paternal β‐thalassaemia mutation were amplified using nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and then sequencing. Relative mutation dosage was used to classify the fetus as having inherited the wild‐type or mutant maternal allele.
Main outcome measures
Classification of the fetus as ‘unaffected’ (if the maternal wild‐type allele was inherited) or ‘affected’ with β‐thalassaemia (if the maternal mutant allele was inherited).
Results
A classification for inheritance of maternal allele was obtained in 48/49 samples (98.0%). A concordant call was made in 44/48 cases (91.7%): one false‐positive and three false‐negatives were obtained. Thus, we had an overall sensitivity of 87.5% 95% confidence interval (CI) 67.6–97.3% and a specificity of 95.8% (95% CI 78.9–99.9%) for inheritance of maternal genotype.
Conclusions
RMD for detection of inheritance of maternal β‐thalassaemia mutations has potential for clinical use. Our sequential approach could be applied to other single‐gene disorders.
Tweetable
NIPT for β‐thalassaemia achieved using nested‐PCR followed by relative mutation dosage.
Tweetable
NIPT for β‐thalassaemia achieved using nested‐PCR followed by relative mutation dosage.
The emergence of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) testing technology has disrupted the landscape of prenatal screening for trisomies 21 (T21) and 18 (T18). Publicly funded systems around the world are ...grappling with how to best integrate this more accurate but costly technology, as there is limited evidence about its incremental value in real-world conditions. The objectives of this study were to describe the population-based performance of Ontario's prenatal screening program, which incorporates publicly funded cfDNA screening for specific indications, and the effect of cfDNA testing on the screening and diagnostic choices made by pregnant people.
We conducted a retrospective, descriptive cohort study using routinely collected data from Better Outcomes & Registry Network (BORN) Ontario, which captures linked population data for prenatal and neonatal health encounters across Ontario. We included all singleton pregnancies with an estimated due date between Sept. 1, 2016, and Mar. 31, 2019, that underwent publicly funded prenatal screening in Ontario, and a comparison cohort from Apr. 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2013. We assessed performance of the screening program for the detection of T21 or T18 by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value against diagnostic cytogenetic results or birth outcomes. We assessed the impact of the program by calculating the proportion of T21 screen-positive pregnancies undergoing subsequent cfDNA screening and invasive prenatal diagnostic testing.
The study cohort included 373 682 pregnancies. The prenatal screening program had an uptake of 69.9%, a screen-positive rate and sensitivity of 1.6% and 89.9% for T21, and 0.2% and 80.5% for T18, respectively. The test failure rate for cfDNA screening was 2.2%. Invasive prenatal diagnostic testing decreased from 4.4% in 2012-2013 to 2.4% over the study period; 65.2% of pregnant people who received a screen-positive result from cfDNA testing went on to have invasive prenatal diagnostic testing.
This publicly funded screening program, incorporating cfDNA analysis for common aneuploidies, showed robust performance, a substantial reduction in invasive prenatal diagnostic testing and that pregnant people exercise autonomy in their choices about prenatal screening and diagnosis.
This statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not ...necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9-10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result.Genet Med 18 10, 1056-1065.
Objective To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway.Design Prospective cohort ...study.Setting Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015.Participants All pregnant women with a current Down’s syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000.Main outcome measures Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down’s syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets.Results NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down’s syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down’s syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval −34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£−46 000, £−1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down’s syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages.Conclusions Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down’s syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down’s syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting.
Emerging genomic technologies, largely based around next generation sequencing (NGS), are offering new promise for safer prenatal genetic diagnosis. These innovative approaches will improve screening ...for fetal aneuploidy, allow definitive non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) of single gene disorders at an early gestational stage without the need for invasive testing, and improve our ability to detect monogenic disorders as the aetiology of fetal abnormalities. This presents clinicians and scientists with novel challenges as well as opportunities. In addition, the transformation of prenatal genetic testing arising from the introduction of whole genome, exome and targeted NGS produces unprecedented volumes of data requiring complex analysis and interpretation. Now translating these technologies to the clinic has become the goal of clinical genomics, transforming modern healthcare and personalized medicine. The achievement of this goal requires the most progressive technological tools for rapid high-throughput data generation at an affordable cost. Furthermore, as larger proportions of patients with genetic disease are identified we must be ready to offer appropriate genetic counselling to families and potential parents. In addition, the identification of novel treatment targets will continue to be explored, which is likely to introduce ethical considerations, particularly if genome editing techniques are included in these targeted treatments and transferred into mainstream personalized healthcare. Here we review the impact of NGS technology to analyse cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma to deliver NIPD for monogenic disorders and allow more comprehensive investigation of the abnormal fetus through the use of exome sequencing.
PDF
