Advertisement

Residual risk for clinically significant copy number variants in low-risk pregnancies, following exclusion of noninvasive prenatal screening–detectable findings

Published:November 08, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.016

      Background

      Chromosomal microarray analysis detects a clinically significant amount of copy number variants in approximately 1% of low-risk pregnancies. As the constantly growing use of noninvasive prenatal screening has facilitated the detection of chromosomal aberrations, defining the rate of abnormal chromosomal microarray analysis findings following normal noninvasive prenatal screening is of importance for making informed decisions regarding prenatal testing and screening options.

      Objective

      To calculate the residual risk for clinically significant copy number variants following theoretically normal noninvasive prenatal screening.

      Study Design

      The chromosomal microarray results of all pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis between the years 2013 and 2021 in a large hospital-based laboratory were collected. Pregnancies with sonographic anomalies, abnormal maternal serum screening, or multiple fetuses were excluded. Clinically significant (pathogenic and likely pathogenic) copy number variants were divided into the following: 3-noninvasive prenatal screening–detectable (trisomies 13, 18, and 21), 5- noninvasive prenatal screening–detectable (including sex chromosome aberrations), 5-noninvasive prenatal screening and common microdeletion-detectable (including 1p36.3–1p36.2, 4p16.3–4p16.2, 5p15.3–5p15.1, 15q11.2–15q13.1, and 22q11.2 deletions), and genome-wide noninvasive prenatal screening–detectable (including variants >7 Mb). The theoretical residual risk for clinically significant copy number variants was calculated following the exclusion of noninvasive prenatal screening–detectable findings.

      Results

      Of the 7235 pregnancies, clinically significant copy number variants were demonstrated in 87 cases (1.2%). The residual risk following theoretically normal noninvasive prenatal screening was 1.07% (1/94) for 3-noninvasive prenatal screening, 0.78% (1/129) for 5- noninvasive prenatal screening, 0.74% (1/136) for 5- noninvasive prenatal screening including common microdeletions, and 0.68% (1/147) for genome-wide noninvasive prenatal screening. In the subgroup of 4048 pregnancies with advanced maternal age, the residual risk for clinically significant copy number variants following theoretically normal noninvasive prenatal screening ranged from 1.36% (1/73) for 3- noninvasive prenatal screening to 0.82% (1/122) for genome-wide noninvasive prenatal screening. In 3187 pregnancies of women <35 years, this residual risk ranged from 0.69% (1/145) for 3- noninvasive prenatal screening to 0.5% (1/199) for genome-wide noninvasive prenatal screening.

      Conclusion

      The residual risk of clinically significant copy number variants in pregnancies without structural sonographic anomalies is appreciable and depends on the noninvasive prenatal screening extent and maternal age. This knowledge is important for the patients, obstetricians, and genetic counselors to facilitate informed decisions regarding prenatal testing and screening options.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sagi-Dain L.
        • Cohen Vig L.
        • Kahana S.
        • et al.
        Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies.
        Genet Med. 2019; 21: 2462-2467
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Committee on Genetics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
        Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 226.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: e48-e69
        • Cernat A.
        • De Freitas C.
        • Majid U.
        • Trivedi F.
        • Higgins C.
        • Vanstone M.
        Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women’s experiences.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19: 27
        • Larion S.
        • Warsof S.L.
        • Romary L.
        • Mlynarczyk M.
        • Peleg D.
        • Abuhamad A.Z.
        Association of combined first-trimester screen and noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1303-1310
        • Ge Y.
        • Li J.
        • Zhuang J.
        • et al.
        Expanded noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy and copy number variations and parental willingness for invasive diagnosis in a cohort of 18,516 cases.
        BMC Med Genomics. 2021; 14: 106
        • Guy G.P.
        • Hargrave J.
        • Dunn R.
        • et al.
        Secondary non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomy: an effectiveness study in a public health setting.
        BJOG. 2021; 128: 440-446
        • Chen Y.
        • Yu Q.
        • Mao X.
        • Lei W.
        • He M.
        • Lu W.
        Noninvasive prenatal testing for chromosome aneuploidies and subchromosomal microdeletions/microduplications in a cohort of 42,910 single pregnancies with different clinical features.
        Hum Genomics. 2019; 13: 60
        • Guseh S.
        • Wilkins-Haug L.
        • Kaimal A.
        • et al.
        Utility of noninvasive genome-wide screening: a prospective cohort of obstetric patients undergoing diagnostic testing.
        Genet Med. 2021; 23: 1341-1348
        • Maya I.
        • Sharony R.
        • Yacobson S.
        • et al.
        When genotype is not predictive of phenotype: implications for genetic counseling based on 21,594 chromosomal microarray analysis examinations.
        Genet Med. 2018; 20: 128-131
        • Riggs E.R.
        • Andersen E.F.
        • Cherry A.M.
        • et al.
        Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen).
        Genet Med. 2020; 22: 245-257
        • Rosenfeld J.A.
        • Coe B.P.
        • Eichler E.E.
        • Cuckle H.
        • Shaffer L.G.
        Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations.
        Genet Med. 2013; 15: 478-481
        • Hastings P.J.
        • Lupski J.R.
        • Rosenberg S.M.
        • Ira G.
        Mechanisms of change in gene copy number.
        Nat Rev Genet. 2009; 10: 551-564
        • Lefkowitz R.B.
        • Tynan J.A.
        • Liu T.
        • et al.
        Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215: 227.e1-227.e16
        • Chen Y.
        • Lai Y.
        • Xu F.
        • et al.
        The application of expanded noninvasive prenatal screening for genome-wide chromosomal abnormalities and genetic counseling.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021; 34: 2710-2716
        • Akolekar R.
        • Beta J.
        • Picciarelli G.
        • Ogilvie C.
        • D’Antonio F.
        Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 45: 16-26
        • Malan V.
        • Bussières L.
        • Winer N.
        • et al.
        Effect of cell-free DNA screening vs direct invasive diagnosis on miscarriage rates in women with pregnancies at high risk of trisomy 21: a randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA. 2018; 320: 557-565
        • van Schendel R.V.
        • Page-Christiaens G.C.M.L.
        • Beulen L.
        • et al.
        Women’s experience with non-invasive prenatal testing and emotional well-being and satisfaction after test-results.
        J Genet Couns. 2017; 26: 1348-1356
      1. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG practice bulletin summary, Number 226.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 859-867
        • Yaron Y.
        The implications of non-invasive prenatal testing failures: a review of an under-discussed phenomenon.
        Prenat Diagn. 2016; 36: 391-396
        • Guadagnolo D.
        • Mastromoro G.
        • Di Palma F.
        • Pizzuti A.
        • Marchionni E.
        Prenatal exome sequencing: background, current practice and future perspectives-a systematic review.
        Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11: 224
        • Martin K.
        • Iyengar S.
        • Kalyan A.
        • et al.
        Clinical experience with a single-nucleotide polymorphism-based non-invasive prenatal test for five clinically significant microdeletions.
        Clin Genet. 2018; 93: 293-300
        • Brison N.
        • Neofytou M.
        • Dehaspe L.
        • et al.
        Predicting fetoplacental chromosomal mosaicism during non-invasive prenatal testing.
        Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 258-266
        • Libotte F.
        • Carpineto S.L.
        • Dello Russo C.
        • et al.
        Cytogenetics and molecular investigations detect a mosaic variant of turner syndrome only suspected by non-invasive prenatal testing: two case reports with negative ultrasound examinations.
        J Med Life. 2020; 13: 624-628
        • Chen C.P.
        • Tsai C.
        • Lin M.H.
        • et al.
        Application of non-invasive prenatal testing in late gestation in a pregnancy associated with intrauterine growth restriction and trisomy 22 confined placental mosaicism.
        Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 56: 691-693
        • Brison N.
        • Storms J.
        • Villela D.
        • et al.
        Maternal copy-number variations in the DMD gene as secondary findings in noninvasive prenatal screening.
        Genet Med. 2019; 21: 2774-2780