Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31671482›Full record

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.

S Hancock, R Ben-Shachar, C Adusei, C B Oyolu, E A Evans, H P Kang, C Haverty, D Muzzey

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. High-throughput fetal fraction amplification increases analytical performance of noninvasive prenatal screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reply.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
    Article
  13. 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 · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

S HancockMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
R Ben-ShacharMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
C AduseiMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
C B OyoluMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
E A EvansMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
H P KangMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
C HavertyMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
D MuzzeyMyriad Women's Health, South San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8822-2035

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Prenatal DiagnosisAdultBiomarkersCell-Free Nucleic AcidsFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMaternal Serum Screening TestsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTrisomyBiomarkersCell-Free Nucleic Acidscell-free DNAfetal fractionnon-invasive prenatal screeningoutcome collectionwhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID31671482
PMCPMC7496885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.