How does cell-based non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) perform against chorionic villus sampling and cell-free NIPT in detecting trisomies and copy number variations? A clinical study from Denmark

Lotte Hatt, Katarina Ravn, Line Dahl Jeppesen, Bolette Hestbek Nicolaisen, Inga Baasch Christensen, Ripudaman Singh, Palle Schelde, Simon Horsholt Thomsen, Rikke Christensen, Marianne Sinding, Laura Vase, Marianne Oestergaard, Marie Bender Ruggard, Hanne S. Jensen, Helle Mogensen, Niels Uldbjerg, Naja Becher, Sara Markholt, Puk Sandager, Lars Henning PedersenIda Vogel*

*Kontaktforfatter

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to compare cell-based NIPT (cbNIPT) to chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and to examine the test characteristics of cbNIPT in the first clinical validation study of cbNIPT compared to cell-free NIPT (cfNIPT). Material and Methods: Study 1: Women (N = 92) who accepted CVS were recruited for cbNIPT (53 normal and 39 abnormal). Samples were analyzed with chromosomal microarray (CMA). Study 2: Women (N = 282) who accepted cfNIPT were recruited for cbNIPT. cfNIPT was analyzed using sequencing and cbNIPT by CMA. Results: Study 1: cbNIPT detected all aberrations (32/32) found in CVS: trisomies 13, 18 and 21 (23/23), pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) (6/6) and sex chromosome aberrations (3/3). cbNIPT detected 3/8 cases of mosaicism in the placenta. Study 2: cbNIPT detected all trisomies found with cfNIPT (6/6) and had no false positive (0/246). One of the three CNVs called by cbNIPT was confirmed by CVS but was undetected by cfNIPT, two were false positives. cbNIPT detected mosaicism in five samples, of which two were not detected by cfNIPT. cbNIPT failed in 7.8% compared to 2.8% in cfNIPT. Conclusion: Circulating trophoblasts in the maternal circulation provide the potential of screening for aneuploidies and pathogenic CNVs covering the entire fetal genome.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPrenatal Diagnosis
Vol/bind43
Udgave nummer7
Sider (fra-til)854-864
ISSN0197-3851
DOI
StatusUdgivet - jun. 2023

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
The completion of this study would not have been possible without the support from pregnant women who generously donated a blood sample. We would like to acknowledge the Danish Central Cytogenetics Register. Special thanks to the technicians at the Department of Clinical Genetics, Aarhus University Hospital, for meticulous everyday work. Technician Filiz Kesgin from the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, is thanked for her assistance on patient recruitment and blood sampling. We would like to acknowledge the laboratory technicians at ARCEDI for their skills in isolation and genotyping of circulating trophoblasts. The fetal cell isolation and down‐stream analyses by CMA were funded by ARCEDI Biotech. Ida Vogel was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0018772). LHP is supported by a Borregaard Clinical Ascending Investigator Grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF18OC0054457). Research related to this study at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital was sponsored by ARCEDI Biotech.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'How does cell-based non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) perform against chorionic villus sampling and cell-free NIPT in detecting trisomies and copy number variations? A clinical study from Denmark'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater