Mary E. Norton

Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation (NICE) Study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18.

OBJECTIVE We sought to evaluate performance of a noninvasive prenatal test for fetal trisomy 21 (T21) and trisomy 18 (T18). STUDY DESIGN A multicenter cohort study was performed whereby cell-free DNA from maternal plasma was analyzed. Chromosome-selective sequencing on chromosomes 21 and 18 was performed with reporting of an aneuploidy risk (High Risk or Low Risk) for each subject. RESULTS Of the 81 T21 cases, all were classified as High Risk for T21 and there was 1 false-positive result among the 2888 normal cases, for a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.5-100%) and a false-positive rate of 0.03% (95% CI, 0.002-0.20%). Of the 38 T18 cases, 37 were classified as High Risk and there were 2 false-positive results among the 2888 normal cases, for a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI, 86.5-99.9%) and a false-positive rate of 0.07% (95% CI, 0.02-0.25%). CONCLUSION Chromosome-selective sequencing of cell-free DNA and application of an individualized risk algorithm is effective in the detection of fetal T21 and T18.

Cell-free DNA Analysis for Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy

BACKGROUND Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing for fetal trisomy is highly effective among high-risk women. However, there have been few direct, well-powered studies comparing cfDNA testing with standard screening during the first trimester in routine prenatal populations. METHODS In this prospective, multicenter, blinded study conducted at 35 international centers, we assigned pregnant women presenting for aneuploidy screening at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation to undergo both standard screening (with measurement of nuchal translucency and biochemical analytes) and cfDNA testing. Participants received the results of standard screening; the results of cfDNA testing were blinded. Determination of the birth outcome was based on diagnostic genetic testing or newborn examination. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) for trisomy 21 (Downs syndrome) with cfDNA testing versus standard screening. We also evaluated cfDNA testing and standard screening to assess the risk of trisomies 18 and 13. RESULTS Of 18,955 women who were enrolled, results from 15,841 were available for analysis. The mean maternal age was 30.7 years, and the mean gestational age at testing was 12.5 weeks. The AUC for trisomy 21 was 0.999 for cfDNA testing and 0.958 for standard screening (P=0.001). Trisomy 21 was detected in 38 of 38 women (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90.7 to 100) in the cfDNA-testing group, as compared with 30 of 38 women (78.9%; 95% CI, 62.7 to 90.4) in the standard-screening group (P=0.008). False positive rates were 0.06% (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.11) in the cfDNA group and 5.4% (95% CI, 5.1 to 5.8) in the standard-screening group (P<0.001). The positive predictive value for cfDNA testing was 80.9% (95% CI, 66.7 to 90.9), as compared with 3.4% (95% CI, 2.3 to 4.8) for standard screening (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this large, routine prenatal-screening population, cfDNA testing for trisomy 21 had higher sensitivity, a lower false positive rate, and higher positive predictive value than did standard screening with the measurement of nuchal translucency and biochemical analytes. (Funded by Ariosa Diagnostics and Perinatal Quality Foundation; NEXT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01511458.).

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).

Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE: To compare loss rates following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) over time. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all amniocentesis and CVS procedures resulting in a normal karyotype from 1983–2003 at a single prenatal diagnostic referral center was conducted. Pregnancy loss rates for amniocentesis, CVS, and nonintervention groups (ie, those who had nuchal translucency screening or counseling, but no procedure) were compared using the &khgr;2 test. Year of procedure, maternal age, parity, race or ethnicity, and gestational age at procedure were controlled for in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 9,886 CVS and 30,893 amniocentesis procedures performed during the study period that resulted in a normal karyotype. The overall loss rates were 3.12% for CVS and 0.83% for amniocentesis (P < .001). When examined by 5-year intervals, there was a statistically significant decrease in the CVS loss rate (P < .001) and a nonsignificant lesser decrease in the loss rate for amniocentesis over time. Although the pregnancy loss rate from CVS over the entire study period was higher than from amniocentesis (adjusted odds ratio 4.23, 95% confidence interval 2.29–7.81), in the most recent time period, 1998 to 2003, there was no difference between the two procedures (adjusted odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.23–4.52). CONCLUSION: The loss rates for both amniocentesis and CVS at our institution have decreased over time. Because the decrease in loss rate for CVS has been greater, there is no longer a statistically significant difference between the two. These results are informative in both patient counseling and establishing widespread prenatal diagnostic and screening programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

Antenatal Betamethasone for Women at Risk for Late Preterm Delivery

BACKGROUND Infants who are born at 34 to 36 weeks of gestation (late preterm) are at greater risk for adverse respiratory and other outcomes than those born at 37 weeks of gestation or later. It is not known whether betamethasone administered to women at risk for late preterm delivery decreases the risks of neonatal morbidities. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial involving women with a singleton pregnancy at 34 weeks 0 days to 36 weeks 5 days of gestation who were at high risk for delivery during the late preterm period (up to 36 weeks 6 days). The participants were assigned to receive two injections of betamethasone or matching placebo 24 hours apart. The primary outcome was a neonatal composite of treatment in the first 72 hours (the use of continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal cannula for at least 2 hours, supplemental oxygen with a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.30 for at least 4 hours, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mechanical ventilation) or stillbirth or neonatal death within 72 hours after delivery. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 165 of 1427 infants (11.6%) in the betamethasone group and 202 of 1400 (14.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk in the betamethasone group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.02). Severe respiratory complications, transient tachypnea of the newborn, surfactant use, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia also occurred significantly less frequently in the betamethasone group. There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of chorioamnionitis or neonatal sepsis. Neonatal hypoglycemia was more common in the betamethasone group than in the placebo group (24.0% vs. 15.0%; relative risk, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.37 to 1.87; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Administration of betamethasone to women at risk for late preterm delivery significantly reduced the rate of neonatal respiratory complications. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01222247.).

Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The Perinatal Quality Foundation and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, in association with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the National Society of Genetic Counselors, have collaborated to provide education for clinicians and laboratories regarding the use of expanded genetic carrier screening in reproductive medicine. This statement does not replace current screening guidelines, which are published by individual organizations to direct the practice of their constituents. As organizations develop practice guidelines for expanded carrier screening, further direction is likely. The current statement demonstrates an approach for health care providers and laboratories who wish to or who are currently offering expanded carrier screening to their patients.

Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening

The aim of this study was to investigate how the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) impacted womens testing choices following a positive prenatal screening (PNS) result.

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

Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Fetuses Referred for Sonographically Suspected Abnormalities of the Corpus Callosum

Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to be useful in assessing the developing central nervous system. However, its utility in specific brain disorders has not been well investigated. We hypothesized that fetal MRI can better assess the integrity of the brain in cases with sonographically suspected callosal abnormalities.

Costello syndrome: Phenotype, natural history, differential diagnosis, and possible cause☆☆☆★

We describe 8 patients affected with Costello syndrome including an affected sib pair and review the literature on 29 previously reported cases. We emphasize an association with advanced parental age, which is consistent with autosomal dominant inheritance with germline mosaicism. The pathogenesis appears to involve metabolic dysfunction, with growth disturbance, storage disorder appearance, acanthosis nigricans, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and occasional abnormalities of glucose metabolism. Although the cause is currently unknown, Costello syndrome is interesting because of a potential genetic-metabolic etiology.