1. |
- Dar, Pe'er, et al.
(author)
-
Cell-free DNA screening for prenatal detection of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.
- 2022
-
In: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6868 .- 0002-9378. ; 227:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Prenatal screening has historically focused primarily on detection of fetal aneuploidies. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) now enables noninvasive screening for subchromosomal copy number variants, including 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS or DiGeorge syndrome), which is the most common microdeletion and a leading cause of congenital heart defects and neurodevelopmental delay. Although smaller studies have demonstrated the feasibility of screening for 22q11.2DS, large cohort studies with postnatal confirmatory testing to assess test performance have not been reported.To assess the performance of SNP-based cfDNA prenatal screening for detection of 22q11.2DS.Patients who had SNP-based cfDNA prenatal screening for 22q11.2DS were prospectively enrolled at 21 centers in 6 countries. Prenatal or newborn DNA samples were requested in all cases for genetic confirmation with chromosomal microarray. The primary outcome was sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of cfDNA for detection of all deletions, including the classical deletion and nested deletions that are ≥500kb, in the 22q11.2 low copy repeat A-D region. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of 22q11.2DS and performance of an updated cfDNA algorithm that was evaluated blinded to pregnancy outcome.Of 20,887 women enrolled, genetic outcome was available in 18,289 (87.6%). Twelve 22q11.2DS cases were confirmed in the cohort, including five (41.7%) nested deletions, yielding a prevalence of 1:1524. In the total cohort, cfDNA reported 17,976 (98.3%) as low risk for 22q11.2DS and 38 (0.2%) as high-risk; 275 (1.5%) were non-reportable. Overall, 9 of 12 cases of 22q11.2 were detected, yielding a sensitivity of 75.0% (95% CI: 42.8, 94.5); specificity of 99.84% (95% CI: 99.77, 99.89); PPV of 23.7% (95% CI: 11.44, 40.24) and NPV of 99.98% (95% CI: 99.95, 100). None of the cases with a non-reportable result was diagnosed with 22q11.2DS. The updated algorithm detected 10/12 cases (83.3%; 95% CI: 51.6-97.9) with a lower false positive rate (0.05% vs. 0.16%, p<0.001) and a PPV of 52.6% (10/19; 95% CI 28.9-75.6).Noninvasive cfDNA prenatal screening for 22q11.2DS can detect most affected cases, including smaller nested deletions, with a low false positive rate.
|
|
2. |
- Dar, Pe'er, et al.
(author)
-
Cell-free DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in pregnancies at low and high risk for aneuploidy with genetic confirmation
- 2022
-
In: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6868 .- 0002-9378. ; 227:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy (T) 21, 18, and 13 has been rapidly adopted into clinical practice. However, prior studies are limited by lack of follow up genetic testing to confirm outcomes and accurately assess test performance, particularly in women at low-risk for aneuploidy.To compare the performance of cfDNA screening for T21, T18 and T13 between women at low and high-risk for aneuploidy in a large, prospective cohort with genetic confirmation of results.A multicenter prospective observational study at 21 centers in 6 countries. Women who had SNP-based cfDNA screening for T21, T18 and T13 were enrolled. Genetic confirmation was obtained from prenatal or newborn DNA samples. Test performance and test failure (no-call) rates were assessed for the cohort and women with low and high prior risk for aneuploidy were compared. An updated cfDNA algorithm, blinded to pregnancy outcome, was also assessed.20,194 were enrolled at median gestational age of 12.6 weeks (IQR:11.6, 13.9). Genetic outcomes were confirmed in 17,851 (88.4%): 13,043 (73.1%) low-risk and 4,808 (26.9%) high-risk for aneuploidy. Overall, 133 trisomies were diagnosed (100 T21; 18 T18; 15 T13). cfDNA screen positive rate was lower in low- vs. high-risk (0.27% vs. 2.2%, p<0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity were similar between groups. The positive predictive value (PPV) for the low and high-risk groups was 85.7% vs. 97.5%, p=0.058 for T21; 50.0% vs. 81.3%, p=0.283 for T18; and 62.5% vs. 83.3, p=0.58 for T13, respectively. Overall, 602 (3.4%) patients had no-call result after the first draw and 287 (1.61%) after including cases with a second draw. Trisomy rate was higher in the 287 with no-call results than patients with a result on a first draw (2.8% vs. 0.7%, p=0.001). The updated algorithm showed similar sensitivity and specificity to the study algorhitm with a lower no-call rate.In women at low-risk for aneuploidy, SNP-based cfDNA has high sensitivity and specificity, PPV of 85.7% for T21 and 74.3% for the three common trisomies. Patients who receive a no-call result are at increased risk of aneuploidy and require additional investigation.
|
|
3. |
- Davies, Neil, et al.
(author)
-
The founding charter of the Genomic Observatories Network
- 2014
-
In: GigaScience. - 2047-217X. ; 3:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Abstract The co-authors of this paper hereby state their intention to work together to launch the Genomic Observatories Network (GOs Network) for which this document will serve as its Founding Charter. We define a Genomic Observatory as an ecosystem and/or site subject to long-term scientific research, including (but not limited to) the sustained study of genomic biodiversity from single-celled microbes to multicellular organisms.An international group of 64 scientists first published the call for a global network of Genomic Observatories in January 2012. The vision for such a network was expanded in a subsequent paper and developed over a series of meetings in Bremen (Germany), Shenzhen (China), Moorea (French Polynesia), Oxford (UK), Pacific Grove (California, USA), Washington (DC, USA), and London (UK). While this community-building process continues, here we express our mutual intent to establish the GOs Network formally, and to describe our shared vision for its future. The views expressed here are ours alone as individual scientists, and do not necessarily represent those of the institutions with which we are affiliated.
|
|