Susan Klugman

Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of maternal age on obstetric outcomes. METHODS: A prospective database from a multicenter investigation of singletons, the FASTER trial, was studied. Subjects were divided into 3 age groups: 1) less than 35 years, 2) 35–39 years, and 3) 40 years and older. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of age on outcomes after adjusting for race, parity, body mass index, education, marital status, smoking, medical history, use of assisted conception, and patients study site. RESULTS: A total of 36,056 women with complete data were available: 28,398 (79%) less than 35 years of age; 6,294 (17%) 35–39 years; and 1,364 (4%) 40 years and older. Increasing age was significantly associated with miscarriage (adjusted odds ratio [adjOR]2.0 and 2.4 for ages 35–39 years and age 40 years and older, respectively), chromosomal abnormalities (adjOR 4.0 and 9.9), congenital anomalies (adjOR 1.4 and 1.7), gestational diabetes (adjOR 1.8 and 2.4), placenta previa (adjOR 1.8 and 2.8), and cesarean delivery (adjOR 1.6 and 2.0). Patients aged 35–39 years were at increased risk for macrosomia (adjOR 1.4). Increased risk for abruption (adjOR 2.3), preterm delivery (adjOR 1.4), low birth weight (adjOR 1.6), and perinatal mortality (adjOR 2.2) was noted in women aged 40 years and older. CONCLUSION: Increasing maternal age is independently associated with specific adverse pregnancy outcomes. Increasing age is a continuum rather than a threshold effect. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the contemporary procedure-related loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis using a database generated from patients who were recruited to the First And Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk for Aneuploidy trial. METHODS: A total of 35,003 unselected patients from the general population with viable singleton pregnancies were enrolled in the First And Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk for Aneuploidy trial between 10 3/7 and 13 6/7 weeks gestation and followed up prospectively for complete pregnancy outcome information. Patients who either did (study group, n=3,096) or did not (control group, n=31,907) undergo midtrimester amniocentesis were identified from the database. The rate of fetal loss less than 24 weeks of gestation was compared between the two groups, and multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: The spontaneous fetal loss rate less than 24 weeks of gestation in the study group was 1.0% and was not statistically different from the background 0.94% rate seen in the control group (P=.74, 95% confidence interval –0.26%, 0.49%). The procedure-related loss rate after amniocentesis was 0.06% (1.0% minus the background rate of 0.94%). Women undergoing amniocentesis were 1.1 times more likely to have a spontaneous loss (95% confidence interval 0.7–1.5). CONCLUSION: The procedure-related fetal loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis performed on patients in a contemporary prospective clinical trial was 0.06%. There was no significant difference in loss rates between those undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Disclaimer: This statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9–10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result.Genet Med 18 10, 1056–1065.

Early access to prenatal care: implications for racial disparity in perinatal mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate racial disparities in perinatal mortality in women with early access to prenatal care. METHODS: A prospectively collected database from a large, multicenter investigation of singleton pregnancies, the FASTER trial, was queried. Patients were recruited from an unselected obstetric population between 1999 and 2002. A total of 35,529 pregnancies with early access to prenatal care were reviewed for this analysis. The timing of perinatal loss was assessed. The following intervals were evaluated: fetal demise at less than 24 weeks of gestation, fetal demise at 24 or more weeks of gestation, and neonatal demise. Perinatal mortality was defined as the sum of these three intervals. RESULTS: The study population was 5% black, 22% Hispanic, 68% white, and 5% other. All minority races experienced higher rates of intrauterine growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm premature rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, preterm birth, very-preterm birth, cesarean delivery, light vaginal bleeding, and heavy vaginal bleeding compared with the white population. Overall perinatal mortality was 13 per 1,000 (471/35,529). The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for perinatal mortality (utilizing the white population as the referent race) were: black 3.5 (2.5–4.9), Hispanic 1.5 (1.2–2.1), and other 1.9 (1.3–2.8). CONCLUSION: Racial disparities in perinatal mortality persist in contemporary obstetric practice despite early access to prenatal care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

First- and Second-Trimester Screening Detection of Aneuploidies Other Than Down Syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of first- and second-trimester screening methods for the detection of aneuploidies other than Down syndrome. METHODS: Patients with singleton pregnancies at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation were recruited at 15 U.S. centers. All patients had a first-trimester nuchal translucency scan, and those without cystic hygroma had a combined test (nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and free β-hCG) and returned at 15–18 weeks for a second-trimester quadruple screen (serum alpha-fetoprotein, total hCG, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin-A). Risk cutoff levels of 1:300 for Down syndrome and 1:100 for trisomy 18 were selected. RESULTS: Thirty-six thousand one hundred seventy-one patients completed first-trimester screening, and 35,236 completed second-trimester screening. There were 77 cases of non–Down syndrome aneuploidies identified in this population; 41 were positive for a cystic hygroma in the first trimester, and a further 36 had a combined test, of whom 29 proceeded to quadruple screening. First-trimester screening, by cystic hygroma determination or combined screening had a 78% detection rate for all non–Down syndrome aneuploidies, with an overall false-positive rate of 6.0%. Sixty-nine percent of non–Down syndrome aneuploidies were identified as screen-positive by the second-trimester quadruple screen, at a false-positive rate of 8.9%. In the combined test, the use of trisomy 18 risks did not detect any additional non–Down syndrome aneuploidies compared with the Down syndrome risk alone. In second-trimester quadruple screening, a trisomy 18–specific algorithm detected an additional 41% non–Down syndrome aneuploidies not detected using the Down syndrome algorithm. CONCLUSION: First-trimester Down syndrome screening protocols can detect the majority of cases of non-Down aneuploidies. Addition of a trisomy 18–specific risk algorithm in the second trimester achieves high detection rates for aneuploidies other than Down syndrome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Rapid and novel prenatal molecular assay for detecting aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes

To develop a targeted aneuploidy and microdeletion detection platform for use in the prenatal setting, to assess the integrity of the platform with a robust validation system, and to prospectively determine the performance of the platform under routine clinical conditions.

Ashkenazi Jewish Screening in the Twenty-first Century

Ashkenazi Jewish genetic screening has expanded significantly in the past 4 decades. Individuals of Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish (AJ) descent are at increased risk of having offspring with particular genetic diseases that have significant morbidity and mortality. In addition, there are some disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, for which northern European Caucasians are at comparable risk with those of an AJ background. Carrier screening for many of these Jewish genetic disorders has become standard of care. As technology advances, so does the number of disorders for which screening is available. Thus, we need to continue to be cognizant of informed consent, test sensitivity, confidentiality, prenatal diagnosis, preimplantation genetic screening, and public health concerns regarding testing.

Genetic variants associated with breast cancer risk for Ashkenazi Jewish women with strong family histories but no identifiable BRCA1/2 mutation

The ability to establish genetic risk models is critical for early identification and optimal treatment of breast cancer. For such a model to gain clinical utility, more variants must be identified beyond those discovered in previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This is especially true for women at high risk because of family history, but without BRCA1/2 mutations. This study incorporates three datasets in a GWAS analysis of women with Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) homogeneous ancestry. Two independent discovery cohorts comprised 239 and 238 AJ women with invasive breast cancer or preinvasive ductal carcinoma in situ and strong family histories of breast cancer, but lacking the three BRCA1/2 founder mutations, along with 294 and 230 AJ controls, respectively. An independent, third cohort of 203 AJ cases with familial breast cancer history and 263 healthy controls of AJ women was used for validation. A total of 19 SNPs were identified as associated with familial breast cancer risk in AJ women. Among these SNPs, 13 were identified from a panel of 109 discovery SNPs, including an FGFR2 haplotype. In addition, six previously identified breast cancer GWAS SNPs were confirmed in this population. Seven of the 19 markers were significant in a multivariate predictive model of familial breast cancer in AJ women, three novel SNPs [rs17663555(5q13.2), rs566164(6q21), and rs11075884(16q22.2)], the FGFR2 haplotype, and three previously published SNPs [rs13387042(2q35), rs2046210(ESR1), and rs3112612(TOX3)], yielding moderate predictive power with an area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC (receiver-operator characteristic curve) of 0.74. Population-specific genetic variants in addition to variants shared with populations of European ancestry may improve breast cancer risk prediction among AJ women from high-risk families without founder BRCA1/2 mutations.

Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis: report of first 6 months in clinical practice

Abstract Objective: We studied the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis in a clinical setting in New York City. Methods: Our center began offering CMA to pregnant women undergoing invasive diagnostic procedures for an abnormal structural finding on ultrasound, maternal age of 35 years or older, or elevated risk on aneuploidy screening, beginning March 2012. Our first six months experience is reported. Results: Benign familial variants were the most common finding (16/22 fetuses). Variants of uncertain significance were frequent, especially when fathers were not available for testing (4/22 fetuses). Most patients undertook CMA as part of evaluation of an ultrasound anomaly (52%). One patient terminated a pregnancy based on an ultrasound finding in the setting of a benign familial variant on CMA, and a second terminated a pregnancy based on a copy number variant identified on CMA. Conclusion: For CMA to be maximally useful in prenatal diagnosis, parental DNA samples as well as robust datasets to provide predictive phenotypic information are required. The most common reason for undertaking CMA was to evaluate an ultrasound anomaly, and benign familial variants were a common finding. Genetic services are required to provide pre- and post-test genetic counseling and help families interpret results.

Sibling and self ovum donation for sisters with an intermediate FMR1 mutation: what's a program to do?

OBJECTIVE To increase awareness of the unique clinical and ethical considerations invoked by the request of a patient with premature ovarian failure (POF) and her nulliparous sister, both with intermediate-size mutations in fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1), to pursue sibling ovum donation. DESIGN Case report. SETTING Academic medical center. PATIENT(S) A 32-year-old woman with POF and her 26-year-old sister with occult diminished ovarian reserve, both of whom are carriers of an intermediate-size mutation in FMR1. INTERVENTION(S) Prospective donor ovarian function testing, genetic testing and consultation, and psychological evaluation; institutional assisted reproduction ethics committee consultation, and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation-IVF with cryopreservation of embryos for potential future self-use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Successful cryopreservation of embryos for autologous use by the prospective donor (younger sister) before ovum donation. RESULTS(S) Three blastocysts were frozen. CONCLUSION(S) Requests for sibling ovum donation, while understandable and ethically sanctioned under typical circumstances, prove particularly challenging in some patients with POF given uncertainties regarding the prognosis of the currently asymptomatic sister, risks of genetic transmission of POF, and fiduciary responsibilities to address the reproductive interests of the prospective donor. A multidisciplinary approach was highly beneficial in this case.