↓ Skip to main content

Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011767.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mylène Badeau, Carmen Lindsay, Jonatan Blais, Leon Nshimyumukiza, Yemisi Takwoingi, Sylvie Langlois, France Légaré, Yves Giguère, Alexis F Turgeon, William Witteman, François Rousseau

Abstract

Common fetal aneuploidies include Down syndrome (trisomy 21 or T21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18 or T18), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13 or T13), Turner syndrome (45,X), Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY), Triple X syndrome (47,XXX) and 47,XYY syndrome (47,XYY). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies is standard care in many countries, but current biochemical and ultrasound tests have high false negative and false positive rates. The discovery of fetal circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in maternal blood offers the potential for genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing (gNIPT) as a more accurate screening method. Two approaches used for gNIPT are massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS) and targeted massively parallel sequencing (TMPS). To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MPSS and TMPS for gNIPT as a first-tier test in unselected populations of pregnant women undergoing aneuploidy screening or as a second-tier test in pregnant women considered to be high risk after first-tier screening for common fetal aneuploidies. The gNIPT results were confirmed by a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or neonatal clinical examination. We searched 13 databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science) from 1 January 2007 to 12 July 2016 without any language, search filter or publication type restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant full-text articles, websites of private prenatal diagnosis companies and conference abstracts. Studies could include pregnant women of any age, ethnicity and gestational age with singleton or multifetal pregnancy. The women must have had a screening test for fetal aneuploidy by MPSS or TMPS and a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or medical records from birth. Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool). Where possible, hierarchical models or simpler alternatives were used for meta-analysis. Sixty-five studies of 86,139 pregnant women (3141 aneuploids and 82,998 euploids) were included. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias across the four domains of the QUADAS-2 tool but applicability concerns were generally low. Of the 65 studies, 42 enrolled pregnant women at high risk, five recruited an unselected population and 18 recruited cohorts with a mix of prior risk of fetal aneuploidy. Among the 65 studies, 44 evaluated MPSS and 21 evaluated TMPS; of these, five studies also compared gNIPT with a traditional screening test (biochemical, ultrasound or both). Forty-six out of 65 studies (71%) reported gNIPT assay failure rate, which ranged between 0% and 25% for MPSS, and between 0.8% and 7.5% for TMPS.In the population of unselected pregnant women, MPSS was evaluated by only one study; the study assessed T21, T18 and T13. TMPS was assessed for T21 in four studies involving unselected cohorts; three of the studies also assessed T18 and 13. In pooled analyses (88 T21 cases, 22 T18 cases, eight T13 cases and 20,649 unaffected pregnancies (non T21, T18 and T13)), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of TMPS was 99.2% (78.2% to 100%), 90.9% (70.0% to 97.7%) and 65.1% (9.16% to 97.2%) for T21, T18 and T13, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificity was above 99.9% for T21, T18 and T13.In high-risk populations, MPSS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in 30, 28, 20 and 12 studies, respectively. In pooled analyses (1048 T21 cases, 332 T18 cases, 128 T13 cases and 15,797 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of MPSS was 99.7% (98.0% to 100%), 97.8% (92.5% to 99.4%), 95.8% (86.1% to 98.9%) and 91.7% (78.3% to 97.1%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificities (95% CI) were 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.8% (99.8% to 99.9%) and 99.6% (98.9% to 99.8%). In this risk group, TMPS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in six, five, two and four studies. In pooled analyses (246 T21 cases, 112 T18 cases, 20 T13 cases and 4282 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% CI) of TMPS was 99.2% (96.8% to 99.8%), 98.2% (93.1% to 99.6%), 100% (83.9% to 100%) and 92.4% (84.1% to 96.5%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X respectively. The clinical specificities were above 100% for T21, T18 and T13 and 99.8% (98.3% to 100%) for 45,X. Indirect comparisons of MPSS and TMPS for T21, T18 and 45,X showed no statistical difference in clinical sensitivity, clinical specificity or both. Due to limited data, comparative meta-analysis of MPSS and TMPS was not possible for T13.We were unable to perform meta-analyses of gNIPT for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY because there were very few or no studies in one or more risk groups. These results show that MPSS and TMPS perform similarly in terms of clinical sensitivity and specificity for the detection of fetal T31, T18, T13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA). However, no study compared the two approaches head-to-head in the same cohort of patients. The accuracy of gNIPT as a prenatal screening test has been mainly evaluated as a second-tier screening test to identify pregnancies at very low risk of fetal aneuploidies (T21, T18 and T13), thus avoiding invasive procedures. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing methods appear to be sensitive and highly specific for detection of fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in high-risk populations. There is paucity of data on the accuracy of gNIPT as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test in a population of unselected pregnant women. With respect to the replacement of invasive tests, the performance of gNIPT observed in this review is not sufficient to replace current invasive diagnostic tests.We conclude that given the current data on the performance of gNIPT, invasive fetal karyotyping is still the required diagnostic approach to confirm the presence of a chromosomal abnormality prior to making irreversible decisions relative to the pregnancy outcome. However, most of the gNIPT studies were prone to bias, especially in terms of the selection of participants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 22%
Unspecified 20 16%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Other 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 41%
Unspecified 22 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 21 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#615,356
of 12,858,386 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,066
of 10,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,338
of 313,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,858,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.