Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090308›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2021

Performance of a targeted cell-free DNA prenatal test for 22q11.2 deletion in a large clinical cohort.

E Bevilacqua, J C Jani, R Chaoui, E-K A Suk, R Palma-Dias, T-M Ko, S Warsof, R Stokowski, K J Jones, F R Grati and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Antenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

E BevilacquaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
J C JaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
R ChaouiPrenatal Diagnosis and Human Genetics, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9089-7119
E-K A SukPrenatal Diagnosis and Human Genetics, Berlin, Germany.
R Palma-DiasThe Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0590-5207
T-M KoGenephile Bioscience Laboratory, Ko's Obstetrics & Gynecology Clinic, Taipei City, Taiwan.
S WarsofEastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
R StokowskiRoche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.
K J JonesRoche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5300-4767
F R GratiTOMA Advanced Biomedical Assays S.p.A, Impact Lab., Busto Arsizio, Italy.
M SchmidRoche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4061-3605
Roche (United States) · USInstitute of Human Genetics · PLUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEBioscience Research · USEastern Virginia Medical School · USOspedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio · ITRoyal Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

F. Hoffmann-La Roche
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective22q11.2 deletion is more common than trisomies 18 and 13 combined, yet no routine approach to prenatal screening for this microdeletion has been established. This study evaluated the clinical sensitivity and specificity of a targeted cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test to screen for fetal 22q11.2 deletion in a large cohort, using blinded analysis of prospectively enrolled pregnancies and stored clinical samples.

methodsIn order to ensure that the analysis included a meaningful number of cases with fetal 22q11.2 deletion, maternal plasma samples were obtained by prospective, multicenter enrolment of pregnancies with a fetal cardiac abnormality and from stored clinical samples from a research sample bank. Fetal genetic status, as evaluated by microarray analysis, karyotyping with fluorescence in-situ hybridization or a comparable test, was available for all cases. Samples were processed as described previously for the Harmony prenatal test, with the addition of DANSR (Digital Analysis of Selected Regions) assays targeting the 3.0-Mb region of 22q11.2 associated with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Operators were blinded to fetal genetic status. Sensitivity and specificity of the cfDNA test for 22q11.2 deletion were calculated based on concordance between the cfDNA result and fetal genotype.

resultsThe final study group consisted of 735 clinical samples, including 358 from prospectively enrolled pregnancies and 377 stored clinical samples. Of 46 maternal plasma samples from pregnancies with a 22q11.2 deletion, ranging in size from 1.25 to 3.25 Mb, 32 had a cfDNA result indicating a high probability of 22q11.2 deletion (sensitivity, 69.6% (95% CI, 55.2-80.9%)). All 689 maternal plasma samples without a 22q11.2 deletion were classified correctly by the cfDNA test as having no evidence of a 22q11.2 deletion (specificity, 100% (95% CI, 99.5-100%)).

conclusionsThe results of this large-scale prospective clinical evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of a targeted cfDNA test for fetal 22q11.2 deletion demonstrate that this test can detect the common and smaller, nested 22q11.2 deletions with a low (0-0.5%) false-positive rate. Although the positive predictive value (PPV) observed in this study population was 100%, the expected PPV in the general pregnant population is estimated to be 12.2% at 99.5% specificity and 41.1% at 99.9% specificity. The use of this cfDNA test to screen for 22q11.2 deletion could enhance identification of pregnancies at risk for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome without significantly increasing the likelihood of maternal anxiety and unnecessary invasive procedures related to a false-positive result. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

AdultCell-Free Nucleic AcidsDiGeorge SyndromeFemaleGenotypeHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKaryotypingMaternal Serum Screening TestsMicroarray AnalysisPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySingle-Blind MethodCell-Free Nucleic Acids22q11.2 deletioncell-free DNADiGeorge syndromemicrodeletionNIPTprenatal diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID34090308
PMCPMC8518527
OpenAlexW3171229796

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.