Jo-Ann Johnson

Position statement from the Aneuploidy Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis

Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Maternitat Campus, University of Barcelona Medical School, Catalonia, Spain Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands Prenatal Screening Unit, Clinical Biochemistry Department, Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, King George Hospital, Goodmayes, UK Genetics Program, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Genetic Institute, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel *Correspondence to: Peter Benn. E-mail: benn@nso1.uchc.edu This Statement replaces the January 2011 Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2011;31:519–522) and the Rapid Response Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2012;32:1–2).

Prenatal Detection of Down Syndrome using Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS): a rapid response statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, 24 October 2011

Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Maternitat Campus, University of Barcelona Medical School, Catalonia, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands Prenatal Screening Unit, Clinical Biochemistry Department, Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospital, King George Hospital, Goodmayes, UK Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Genetic Institute, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel *Correspondence to: Peter Benn. E-mail: benn@nso1.uchc.edu

Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis

President President-Elect Past President Secretary Treasurer Lucas Otano MD, PhD (Argentina) Ignatia B. Van den Veyver MD (USA) Jan M.M. van Lith MD, PhD (Netherlands) Louise Wilkins-Haug MD (USA) Antoni Borrell MD, PhD (Spain) Directors Peter Benn PhD, DSc (USA) Lyn Chitty PhD (UK) Rossa Chiu (Hong Kong) Roland Devlieger MD, PhD (Belgium) Sylvie Langlois MD, CCMG (Canada) Anthony O. Odibo MD, MSCE (USA) R. Doug Wilson MD, Msc, FRCSC (Canada) Yuval Yaron MD (Israel) Diana W. Bianchi MD, ex officio (USA) Position Statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on Behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis

Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy in Singleton Pregnancies

OBJECTIVE To develop a Canadian consensus document on maternal screening for fetal aneuploidy (e.g., Down syndrome and trisomy 18) in singleton pregnancies. OPTIONS Pregnancy screening for fetal aneuploidy started in the mid 1960s, using maternal age as the screening test. New developments in maternal serum and ultrasound screening have made it possible to offer all pregnant patients a non-invasive screening test to assess their risk of having a fetus with aneuploidy to determine whether invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is necessary. This document reviews the options available for non-invasive screening and makes recommendations for Canadian patients and health care workers. OUTCOMES To offer non-invasive screening for fetal aneuploidy (trisomy 13, 18, 21) to all pregnant women. Invasive prenatal diagnosis would be offered to women who screen above a set risk cut-off level on non-invasive screening or to pregnant women whose personal, obstetrical, or family history places them at increased risk. Currently available non-invasive screening options include maternal age combined with one of the following: (1) first trimester screening (nuchal translucency, maternal age, and maternal serum biochemical markers), (2) second trimester serum screening (maternal age and maternal serum biochemical markers), or (3) 2-step integrated screening, which includes first and second trimester serum screening with or without nuchal translucency (integrated prenatal screen, serum integrated prenatal screening, contingent, and sequential). These options are reviewed, and recommendations are made. EVIDENCE Studies published between 1982 and 2009 were retrieved through searches of PubMed or Medline and CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (aneuploidy, Down syndrome, trisomy, prenatal screening, genetic health risk, genetic health surveillance, prenatal diagnosis). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and relevant observational studies. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. The previous Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guidelines regarding prenatal screening were also reviewed in developing this clinical practice guideline. VALUES The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS This guideline is intended to reduce the number of prenatal invasive procedures done when maternal age is the only indication. This will have the benefit of reducing the numbers of normal pregnancies lost because of complications of invasive procedures. Any screening test has an inherent false-positive rate, which may result in undue anxiety. It is not possible at this time to undertake a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of this guideline, since this would require health surveillance and research and health resources not presently available; however, these factors need to be evaluated in a prospective approach by provincial and territorial initiatives. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All pregnant women in Canada, regardless of age, should be offered, through an informed counselling process, the option of a prenatal screening test for the most common clinically significant fetal aneuploidies in addition to a second trimester ultrasound for dating, assessment of fetal anatomy, and detection of multiples. (I-A) 2. Counselling must be non-directive and must respect a womans right to accept or decline any or all of the testing or options offered at any point in the process. (III-A) 3. Maternal age alone is a poor minimum standard for prenatal screening for aneuploidy, and it should not be used a basis for recommending invasive testing when non-invasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy is available. (II-2A) 4. Invasive prenatal diagnosis for cytogenetic analysis should not be performed without multiple marker screening results except for women who are at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy (a) because of ultrasound findings, (b) because the pregnancy was conceived by in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or (c) because the woman or her partner has a history of a previous child or fetus with a chromosomal abnormality or is a carrier of a chromosome rearrangement that increases the risk of having a fetus with a chromosomal abnormality. (II-2E) 5. At minimum, any prenatal screen offered to Canadian women who present for care in the first trimester should have a detection rate of 75% with no more than a 3% false-positive rate. The performance of the screen should be substantiated by annual audit. (III-B) 6. The minimum standard for women presenting in the second trimester should be a screen that has a detection rate of 75% with no more than a 5% false-positive rate. The performance of the screen should be substantiated by annual audit. (III-B) 7. First trimester nuchal translucency should be interpreted for risk assessment only when measured by sonographers or sonologists trained and accredited for this service and when there is ongoing quality assurance (II-2A), and it should not be offered as a screen without biochemical markers in singleton pregnancies. (I-E) 8. Evaluation of the fetal nasal bone in the first trimester should not be incorporated as a screen unless it is performed by sonographers or sonologists trained and accredited for this service and there is ongoing quality assurance. (II-2E) 9. For women who undertake first trimester screening, second trimester serum alpha fetoprotein screening and/or ultrasound examination is recommended to screen for open neural tube defects. (II-1A) 10. Timely referral and access is critical for women and should be facilitated to ensure women are able to undergo the type of screening test they have chosen as first trimester screening. The first steps of integrated screening (with or without nuchal translucency), contingent, or sequential screening are performed in an early and relatively narrow time window. (II-1A) 11. Ultrasound dating should be performed if menstrual or conception dating is unreliable. For any abnormal serum screen calculated on the basis of menstrual dating, an ultrasound should be done to confirm gestational age. (II-1A) 12. The presence or absence of soft markers or anomalies in the 18- to 20-week ultrasound can be used to modify the a priori risk of aneuploidy established by age or prior screening. (II-2B) 13. Information such as gestational dating, maternal weight, ethnicity, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and use of assisted reproduction technologies should be provided to the laboratory to improve accuracy of testing. (II-2A) 14. Health care providers should be aware of the screening modalities available in their province or territory. (III-B) 15. A reliable system needs to be in place ensuring timely reporting of results. (III-C) 16. Screening programs should be implemented with resources that support audited screening and diagnostic laboratory services, ultrasound, genetic counselling services, patient and health care provider education, and high quality diagnostic testing, as well as resources for administration, annual clinical audit, and data management. In addition, there must be the flexibility and funding to adjust the program to new technology and protocols. (II-3B).

Aneuploidy screening: a position statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, January 2011

Definitive prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and certain other fetal aneuploidies through chromosome analysis of amniocytes or chorionic villus samples (CVS) is an accepted part of prenatal care. But these procedures carry some degree of risk for miscarriage or other pregnancy complications (Tabor and Alfirevic, 2010). Therefore, in most developed countries it is now a routine practice to provide a woman’s personal risk for aneuploidy (screening) and to offer definitive diagnosis through amniocentesis or CVS if the risk exceeds a fixed cut-off. However, in the United States it has been recommended that amniocentesis and CVS should be available to all women whether or not they have screening (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2007a), although it is recognized that screening can be helpful to women before they decide whether to accept or reject amniocentesis or CVS (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2007b). Fetal aneuploidy risk can be evaluated on the basis of a combination of maternal age, prior family history, maternal serum biochemical tests and fetal ultrasound markers (Cuckle and Benn, 2010). Risk evaluation provides an opportunity to re-assure most women that their fetus is unlikely to be affected by a chromosomal disorder and also to reduce the number of unnecessary invasive procedures performed. Those women who are identified as being at high risk can receive genetic counseling, additional testing and appropriate follow-up obstetric care. Because Down syndrome is the most common significant aneuploidy, prenatal screening has emphasized the detection of this disorder. However, it is recognized that many of the screening tests have a variable potential to detect other aneuploidies, some other genetic disorders, specific fetal anatomic abnormalities and pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia.

Mid-Trimester Amniocentesis Fetal Loss Rate

OBJECTIVE To determine the postprocedure loss rate for mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. OUTCOME Reduction of benign biopsy rates. BENEFITS To provide better advice for women about the risks and benefits of mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis, and to ensure that women are given sufficient information/counselling to make a decision about screening. SUMMARY STATEMENT The risk of postprocedure loss is unique to the individual and is based on multiple variables.

Prospective experience with integrated prenatal screening and first trimester combined screening for trisomy 21 in a large Canadian urban center

To evaluate the performance of integrated prenatal screening (IPS) and first trimester combined screening (FTS) for trisomy 21 in a large Canadian urban center.

First‐trimester Down syndrome screening using additional serum markers with and without nuchal translucency and cell‐free DNA

This study aimed to evaluate serum‐only four‐marker first trimester (1T‐Quad) Down syndrome screening, alone or contingently to select 10–20% with highest risk for nuchal translucency (NT) or cell‐free (cf)DNA.

Costs and benefits of non‐invasive fetal RhD determination

Non‐invasive fetal Rhesus (Rh) D genotyping, using cell‐free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in the maternal blood, allows targeted antenatal anti‐RhD prophylaxis in unsensitized RhD‐negative pregnant women. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost and benefit of this approach as compared to routine antenatal anti‐RhD prophylaxis for all unsensitized RhD‐negative pregnant women, as is the current policy in the province of Alberta, Canada.

Antenatal predictors of outcome in prenatally diagnosed congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH).

BACKGROUND Pulmonary hypoplasia is the main cause of mortality in isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) and its prediction is paramount when counseling parents. We sought to identify antenatal parameters that predicted neonatal mortality in CDH. METHOD Search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science on the ability of lung-to-head ratio (LHR), observed-to-expected LHR (o/e LHR), total fetal lung volume (TFLV), o/e TFLV, percentage predicted lung volume (PPLV) and degree of liver herniation to predict neonatal morbidity and mortality in fetuses with CDH. Primary outcome was perinatal survival and secondary was the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). RESULTS Until April 2016, 1067 articles were found, of which 22 were included in our meta-analysis. This showed that the odds of survival with LHR <1.0 and liver herniation on ultrasound were 0.14 (CI 0.10-0.27) and 0.21 (CI 0.13-0.35) respectively. Mean LHR, o/e LHR, absolute TFLV, o/e TFLV, PPLV and liver herniation all predicted survival, however o/e LHR and o/e TFLV performed best in this prediction. When the longest diameter measurement method was used, the o/e TFLV (summary area under curve (AUC) 0.8) was slightly superior to o/e LHR (summary AUC 0.78). This difference disappeared when LHR was measured by the trace method. The most discriminatory threshold for O/E LHR and O/E TFLV was 25%. LHR <1 was predictive of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) use. CONCLUSION O/E LHR, o/e TFLV (thresholds of 25%) and liver herniation are good predictors of mortality in CDH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II Type of study: Systematic review and meta-analysis.