Printer Friendly

The evolution of prenatal testing: how NIPT is changing the landscape in fetal aneuploidy screening.

The advent of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies has transformed the typical obstetrics practice and the prenatal care experience for many pregnant women. Also known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing, NIPT has demonstrated better accuracy than conventional first-trimester screening and serum tests for the detection of fetal trisomies--aneuploidies that involve an extra chromosome--and its low false-positive rate in particular has reduced the need for more invasive, higher-risk diagnostic procedures, such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). (1)

As a result, NIPT screening technologies offer potential benefits in both patient care and cost management. But most studies assessing the performance of NIPT have focused on high-risk patient populations. Recent study data indicate that the benefits of NIPT extend to normal patient populations as well--and the results are particularly encouraging in the area of reducing false positives.

Fetal aneuploidy testing guidelines

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that all women be offered aneuploidy screening during the first or second trimester of pregnancy. (2) Most women are offered screening for trisomies 21 (Down syndrome), 18 (Edwards syndrome), and 13 (Patau syndrome).

The risk for aneuploidies increases with maternal age. The estimated risks of fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13 for a 20-year-old woman at 12 weeks of gestation are approximately 1 in 1,000, 1 in 2,500, and 1 in 8,000 respectively. The risks of these aneuploidies for a 35-year-old woman at 12 weeks of gestation are approximately 1 in 250, 1 in 600, and 1 in 1,800. (3)

The most common prenatal screening test for fetal aneuploidy is the quad screen, or quadruple marker test, which is typically performed between 16 and 18 weeks of pregnancy, but occasionally up to week 20. Using a maternal blood draw, the quad screen examines four biochemical analytes: alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), a protein made by the fetus; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone made by the placenta; estriol, a hormone made by the placenta and the liver of the fetus; and inhibin A, another hormone made by the liver. In addition to screening for trisomies 21 and 18, the quad screen evaluates the likelihood of neural tube defects, such as spinal bifida and anencephaly, and abdominal wall defects.

The quad screen is easy to do, noninvasive, and inexpensive, and poses no risk of miscarriage or other pregnancy complications. The results of the quad test are evaluated along with maternal demographic information such as age, weight, gestational age, diabetic status, and race to derive a risk estimate using a mathematical model. The test correctly identifies about 80 percent of women who are carrying a baby with Down syndrome and has a false-positive rate of about five percent. (4)

Another common screening test, the nuchal translucency (NT) scan, uses ultrasound to measure the clear (translucent) space in the tissue at the back of the fetus' neck. Babies with certain abnormalities tend to accumulate more fluid at the back of their neck during the first trimester, which causes this clear space to be larger than average. That measurement is typically combined with a maternal blood test to measure levels of pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) at 11 to 14 weeks. The combined screening test has demonstrated a detection rate of 95 percent for Down syndrome. (5) This combination test is more accurate than the Quad, but the NT scan is more difficult to perform correctly given the challenges inherent in accurately measuring the NT. While it is widely available as the standard of care, it is not available everywhere due to lack of access to NT-certified sonographers. Other screening tests combining maternal serum analytes and the NT ultrasound are available, but are less frequently used.

The impact of false positives

A major drawback of both the quad screen and the NT scan/ combined screen is the high false-positive rate. Both of these tests use a statistical modeling algorithm that sets a five percent false-positive rate for trisomy 21. Multiplying the five percent false-positive rate by an estimated four million pregnancies per year in the United States yields 200,000 potential false-positive results for Down syndrome annually.

Screening for fetal aneuploidy using cfDNA testing was introduced in 2011. Using a maternal blood draw, it can be performed as early as 10 weeks and poses no risk of miscarriage or other complications to the pregnancy. Studies using today's commercially available options, all lab-developed tests, report sensitivity and specificity above 99 percent for the detection of Down syndrome. Some of these tests also measure and report fetal fraction--the percent of fetal DNA in the mothers' blood--to provide an individualized risk score for each patient. Fetal fraction is the most critical quality control metric that impacts the accuracy of this testing.

However, the high-risk populations used in most studies of cfDNA testing to date are not representative of the normal pregnancy population, and thus they have not provided good statistical samples for the purpose of analyzing false-positive rates.

The NEXT study

That changed in 2015 with the publication of the results of the Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy (NEXT) study in the New England Journal of Medicine. (7) In the NEXT study, (8) 18,955 women were enrolled, and results from 15,841 patients were available for analysis. The patients represented a general prenatal screening population (ages 18 to 48) from practices in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. This yielded a real-world demographic that is representative of the way obstetric screening is practiced rather than how it is studied in an academic setting.

The primary focus of the study was to compare the performance of cfDNA testing and standard first-trimester screening (with measurement of nuchal translucency and biochemical analytes) in risk assessment for trisomy 21. The authors concluded that "the performance of cfDNA testing was superior to that of traditional first-trimester screening for the detection of trisomy 21 in a routine prenatal population." In the study, the cfDNA test demonstrated higher sensitivity (100 percent) and higher positive predictive value (80.9 percent) for Down syndrome than did standard screening (78.9 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively).

One of the most significant findings in the study, however, was the difference in the rate of false-positive results. The false-positive rate for Down syndrome with the cfDNA test was 0.06 percent--nearly 100 times lower than the 5.4 percent false-positive rate for standard screening. The implications of this improvement for prenatal care in the U.S. are significant.

Implementation considerations and future directions

The performance of cfDNA testing for the detection of trisomy 21 in a routine prenatal population was clearly superior to that of traditional first-trimester screening in the NEXT study. Having clear answers early in pregnancy regarding chromosomal abnormalities through the use of cfDNA testing can help reduce the frequency of invasive diagnostic procedures due to false positives and alleviate a significant amount of patient anxiety. Visit the references on the MLO website, wmo.mlo-online.com

Adam Wolfberg, MD, MPH, FACOG, practices obstetrics in Massachusetts and is the director of clinical effectiveness at athenahealth. Dr. Wolfberg is also a founder and chief medical officer of Mindchild Medical, a fetal EKG startup, and a founder of Bellybaloo.
COPYRIGHT 2016 NP Communications, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:CLINICAL ISSUES: PREGNANCY/PRENATAL; non-invasive prenatal testing
Author:Wolfberg, Adam
Publication:Medical Laboratory Observer
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2016
Words:1197
Previous Article:QA: NIST-certified thermometers and pipette cleaning.
Next Article:Beyond conventional cell analysis: the latest science and technology in flow cytometry.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters