ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2020
Clinical experience across the fetal-fraction spectrum of a non-invasive prenatal screening approach with low test-failure rate.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal Screening Via cfDNA - Paired-End Sequencing Utilizing Fragment Size Information Reduces the Screen Positive Rate for X Chromosome Aneuploidies.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Management of Pregnancies Screening Positive for Microdeletions 22q11.2, 15q11.2, 1p36, 4p, or 5p: A Retrospective Cohort Study.The application of clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Screening Positive for Rare Autosomal Aneuploidies Increases Frequency of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Alters Clinical Management.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive prenatal testing with rolling circle amplification: Real-world clinical experience in a non-molecular laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- A Critical Evaluation of Validation and Clinical Experience Studies in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and Monosomy X.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Consequences of imprecision in fetal fraction estimation on performance of cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- The impact of HBB-related hemoglobinopathies carrier status on fetal fraction in noninvasive prenatal screening.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Assessment and Clinical Utility of a Non-Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing Technology.Current issues in molecular biology · 2021Article
- High-throughput fetal fraction amplification increases analytical performance of noninvasive prenatal screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Lipid Metabolism Affects Fetal Fraction and Screen Failures in Non-invasive Prenatal Testing.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Follow-up in Patients With Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Failures: A Reflection on the Choice of Further Prenatal Diagnosis.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Reply.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020Article
- Re: Clinical experience across the fetal-fraction spectrum of a non-invasive prenatal screening approach with low test-failure rate.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byReply.2020
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe our clinical experience across the entire range of fetal-fraction (FF) measurements of a non-invasive prenatal screen (NIPS) that uses whole- genome sequencing (WGS).
methodsWe analyzed retrospectively results from 58 105 singleton pregnancies that underwent NIPS on a customized WGS platform during an 8-month period and assessed clinical test performance for trisomy 21, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Pregnancy outcomes were sought for all screen-positive patients and for 18% of screen-negative patients. As differences in outcome-collection response rates could artificially impact test-performance calculations, we computed inferred sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values adjusted for ascertainment bias.
resultsThe screening test yielded a result for 99.9% (n = 58 048) of patients, meaning that approximately 1 in 1000 patients received a test failure (i.e. test failure rate = 0.1%). Of pregnancies with a test result, 572 (1%) screened positive for one of the common aneuploidies (362 for trisomy 21, 142 for trisomy 18 and 68 for trisomy 13). Informative outcomes were received for 237 (41.4%) patients with a screen-positive result and 3258 (5.7%) of those with a screen-negative result. In the full cohort, inferred sensitivities for trisomy 21, trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 were 99.7%, 96.8% and 94.3%, respectively, and PPVs were 93.1%, 85.2% and 48.4%, respectively. If a FF threshold of 4% had been employed to guard against false negatives, calculated sensitivities for the three aneuploidies would not have changed significantly, yet, importantly, the overall test-failure rate would have increased to 6.6% (n = 3829), impacting 1 in 15 women.
conclusionsOur clinical experience demonstrates that a customized WGS-based NIPS without a FF threshold achieves high accuracy while maintaining a low test-failure rate of 0.1%. As such, alternative strategies to ensure high accuracy of detection of common aneuploidies in samples with low FF (such as redraw after test failure, redrawing at a later gestational age, risk scoring based on FF) are not necessary for this screening approach. © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.