2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance of a targeted cell‐free DNA prenatal test for 22q11.2 deletion in a large clinical cohort

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Objective

          22q11.2 deletion is more common than trisomies 18 and 13 combined, yet no routine approach to prenatal screening for this microdeletion has been established. This study evaluated the clinical sensitivity and specificity of a targeted cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) test to screen for fetal 22q11.2 deletion in a large cohort, using blinded analysis of prospectively enrolled pregnancies and stored clinical samples.

          Methods

          In order to ensure that the analysis included a meaningful number of cases with fetal 22q11.2 deletion, maternal plasma samples were obtained by prospective, multicenter enrolment of pregnancies with a fetal cardiac abnormality and from stored clinical samples from a research sample bank. Fetal genetic status, as evaluated by microarray analysis, karyotyping with fluorescence in‐situ hybridization or a comparable test, was available for all cases. Samples were processed as described previously for the Harmony prenatal test, with the addition of DANSR (Digital Analysis of Selected Regions) assays targeting the 3.0‐Mb region of 22q11.2 associated with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Operators were blinded to fetal genetic status. Sensitivity and specificity of the cfDNA test for 22q11.2 deletion were calculated based on concordance between the cfDNA result and fetal genotype.

          Results

          The final study group consisted of 735 clinical samples, including 358 from prospectively enrolled pregnancies and 377 stored clinical samples. Of 46 maternal plasma samples from pregnancies with a 22q11.2 deletion, ranging in size from 1.25 to 3.25 Mb, 32 had a cfDNA result indicating a high probability of 22q11.2 deletion (sensitivity, 69.6% (95% CI, 55.2–80.9%)). All 689 maternal plasma samples without a 22q11.2 deletion were classified correctly by the cfDNA test as having no evidence of a 22q11.2 deletion (specificity, 100% (95% CI, 99.5–100%)).

          Conclusions

          The results of this large‐scale prospective clinical evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of a targeted cfDNA test for fetal 22q11.2 deletion demonstrate that this test can detect the common and smaller, nested 22q11.2 deletions with a low (0–0.5%) false‐positive rate. Although the positive predictive value (PPV) observed in this study population was 100%, the expected PPV in the general pregnant population is estimated to be 12.2% at 99.5% specificity and 41.1% at 99.9% specificity. The use of this cfDNA test to screen for 22q11.2 deletion could enhance identification of pregnancies at risk for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome without significantly increasing the likelihood of maternal anxiety and unnecessary invasive procedures related to a false‐positive result. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

          Abstract

          Linked article: There is a comment on this article by Jing and Li. Click here to view the Correspondence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          22q11.2 deletion syndrome

          22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is the most common chromosomal microdeletion disorder, estimated to result mainly from de novo non-homologous meiotic recombination events occurring in approximately 1 in every 1,000 fetuses. The first description in the English language of the constellation of findings now known to be due to this chromosomal difference was made in the 1960s in children with DiGeorge syndrome, who presented with the clinical triad of immunodeficiency, hypoparathyroidism and congenital heart disease. The syndrome is now known to have a heterogeneous presentation that includes multiple additional congenital anomalies and later-onset conditions, such as palatal, gastrointestinal and renal abnormalities, autoimmune disease, variable cognitive delays, behavioural phenotypes and psychiatric illness - all far extending the original description of DiGeorge syndrome. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach involving paediatrics, general medicine, surgery, psychiatry, psychology, interventional therapies (physical, occupational, speech, language and behavioural) and genetic counselling. Although common, lack of recognition of the condition and/or lack of familiarity with genetic testing methods, together with the wide variability of clinical presentation, delays diagnosis. Early diagnosis, preferably prenatally or neonatally, could improve outcomes, thus stressing the importance of universal screening. Equally important, 22q11.2DS has become a model for understanding rare and frequent congenital anomalies, medical conditions, psychiatric and developmental disorders, and may provide a platform to better understand these disorders while affording opportunities for translational strategies across the lifespan for both patients with 22q11.2DS and those with these associated features in the general population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis.

            Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis. Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central karyotyping laboratory. Each sample was split in two; standard karyotyping was performed on one portion and the other was sent to one of four laboratories for chromosomal microarray. We enrolled a total of 4406 women. Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), abnormal result on Down's syndrome screening (18.8%), structural anomalies on ultrasonography (25.2%), and other indications (9.4%). In 4340 (98.8%) of the fetal samples, microarray analysis was successful; 87.9% of samples could be used without tissue culture. Microarray analysis of the 4282 nonmosaic samples identified all the aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements identified on karyotyping but did not identify balanced translocations and fetal triploidy. In samples with a normal karyotype, microarray analysis revealed clinically relevant deletions or duplications in 6.0% with a structural anomaly and in 1.7% of those whose indications were advanced maternal age or positive screening results. In the context of prenatal diagnostic testing, chromosomal microarray analysis identified additional, clinically significant cytogenetic information as compared with karyotyping and was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements but did not identify balanced translocations and triploidies. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01279733.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Practical guidelines for managing patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                drmaximilianschmid@gmail.com
                Journal
                Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
                Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
                10.1002/(ISSN)1469-0705
                UOG
                Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Chichester, UK )
                0960-7692
                1469-0705
                01 October 2021
                October 2021
                : 58
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/uog.v58.4 )
                : 597-602
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Brugmann Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels Belgium
                [ 2 ] Prenatal Diagnosis and Human Genetics Berlin Germany
                [ 3 ] The Royal Women's Hospital University of Melbourne Parkville VIC Australia
                [ 4 ] Genephile Bioscience Laboratory, Ko's Obstetrics & Gynecology Clinic Taipei City Taiwan
                [ 5 ] Eastern Virginia Medical School Norfolk VA USA
                [ 6 ] Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. San Jose CA USA
                [ 7 ] TOMA Advanced Biomedical Assays S.p.A, Impact Lab. Busto Arsizio Italy
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Prof. M. Schmid, 5945 Optical Court, San Jose, CA 95138, USA (e‐mail: drmaximilianschmid@ 123456gmail.com )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9089-7119
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0590-5207
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5300-4767
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4061-3605
                Article
                UOG23699
                10.1002/uog.23699
                8518527
                34090308
                72bb4e91-c4c3-46b2-a35b-1b2a5c1f70c3
                © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 May 2021
                : 17 December 2020
                : 21 May 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 6, Words: 4180
                Funding
                Funded by: F. Hoffmann‐La Roche , doi 10.13039/100007013;
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.8 mode:remove_FC converted:15.10.2021

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                22q11.2 deletion,cell‐free dna,digeorge syndrome,microdeletion,nipt,prenatal diagnosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article