Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36105088›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Multisite assessment of the impact of cell-free DNA-based screening for rare autosomal aneuploidies on pregnancy management and outcomes.

Tamara Mossfield, Erica Soster, Melody Menezes, Gloudi Agenbag, Marie-Line Dubois, Jean Gekas, Tristan Hardy, Monika Jurkowska, Pascale Kleinfinger, Kelly Loggenberg and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Tamara MossfieldGenea, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Erica SosterLabcorp Women's Health and Genetics, Laboratory Corporation of America, San Diego, CA, United States.
Melody MenezesMonash IVF Genetics, Monash IVF Group, Richmond, VIC, Australia.
Gloudi AgenbagNext Biosciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Marie-Line DuboisFaculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Jean GekasCHU de Quebec Research and Mother and Child Center, Department of Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Tristan HardyMonash IVF Genetics, Monash IVF Group, Richmond, VIC, Australia.
Monika JurkowskaGenomed SA, Warsaw, Poland.
Pascale KleinfingerLaboratory CERBA, Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône, France.
Kelly LoggenbergNext Biosciences, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Pablo MarchiliVeragen, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Roberto SiricaAMES, Centro Polidiagnostico Strumentale, Srl, Naples, Italy.
Global Expanded NIPT Consortium
Monash IVF · AUUniversité Laval · CAGenomed (Poland) · PLLabCorp (United States) · USVirbac (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-free (cf) DNA screening is a noninvasive prenatal screening approach that is typically used to screen for common fetal trisomies, with optional screening for sex chromosomal aneuploidies and fetal sex. Genome-wide cfDNA screening can screen for a wide variety of additional anomalies, including rare autosomal aneuploidies (RAAs) and copy number variants. Here, we describe a multi-cohort, global retrospective study that looked at the clinical outcomes of cases with a high-risk cfDNA screening result for a RAA. Our study cohort included a total of 109 cases from five different sites, with diagnostic outcome information available for 68% (74/109) of patients. Based on confirmatory diagnostic testing, we found a concordance rate of 20.3% for presence of a RAA (15/74) in our study population. Pregnancy outcome was also available for 77% (84/109) of cases in our cohort. Many of the patients experienced adverse pregnancy outcomes, including intrauterine fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth. These adverse outcomes were observed both in patients with fetal or placental confirmation of the presence of a RAA, as well as patients that did not undergo fetal and/or placental diagnostic testing. In addition, we have proposed some suggestions for pregnancy management and counseling considerations for situations where a RAA is noted on a cfDNA screen. In conclusion, our study has shown that genome-wide cfDNA screening for the presence of rare autosomal aneuploidies can be beneficial for both patients and their healthcare practitioners. This can provide a possible explanation for an adverse pregnancy outcome or result in a change in pregnancy management, such as increased monitoring for adverse outcomes.

Indexed as

genetic counselinggenome-widemosaicismnoninvasive prenatal testingpregnancy outcomerare autosomal aneuploidy

Identifiers

PMID36105088
PMCPMC9465083
OpenAlexW4293537636

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.