RAPIDLY CHANGING TRENDS IN ANEUPLOIDY SCREENING Mary E. Norton MD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
rapidly changing trends in aneuploidy screening
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

RAPIDLY CHANGING TRENDS IN ANEUPLOIDY SCREENING Mary E. Norton MD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 12, 2023 370 likes •542 views

10/24/2013 RAPIDLY CHANGING TRENDS IN ANEUPLOIDY SCREENING Mary E. Norton MD Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California, San Francisco Conflict of Interest Disclosure History of Prenatal Screening

slide-1
SLIDE 1

10/24/2013 1

RAPIDLY CHANGING TRENDS IN ANEUPLOIDY SCREENING

Mary E. Norton MD Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California, San Francisco

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

  • I have no personal financial stake in any

commercial entity related to this talk

  • I am co-PI of a clinical trial supported by Ariosa

Diagnostics and site PI of clinical studies and unpaid clinical advisor for CellScape.

History of Prenatal Screening

  • Maternal age 35 yo

1960’s

  • MSAFP for NTD

1977

  • Multiple marker screening

1988

  • First trimester markers/NT

1994

  • ACOG “all tests available”

2007

  • Universal screening (multiplex panels)

2010

  • Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

2011

  • Fetal whole genome sequencing

2012

slide-2
SLIDE 2

10/24/2013 2

20 40 60 80 100 120

Detection Rate of Prenatal Screening for Down syndrome has improved over time

Detection Rate (%)

Multiple marker screening

  • Uses a combination of first and second trimester serum

analytes and ultrasound markers

  • Primary purpose is screening for Down syndrome and

neural tube defects

  • Can also detect other birth defects and abnormalities
  • In absence of fetal anomalies, abnormal levels of some

analytes are associated with adverse obstetric outcomes

Fetal Anomalies Associated with Elevated MSAFP

  • Open fetal anomalies
  • Neural tube defects (spina bifida/anencephaly)

Ventral wall defects (omphalocele/gastroschisis)

Chromosome abnormalities

Triploidy

Severe renal abnormalities

Bilateral renal agenesis Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease

Congenital skin disorders Upper GI tract obstruction

Fetal Anomalies Associated with Elevated MSAFP

  • Open fetal anomalies
  • Neural tube defects (spina bifida/anencephaly)
  • Ventral wall defects (omphalocele/gastroschisis)
  • Chromosome abnormalities
  • Triploidy
  • Severe renal abnormalities
  • Bilateral renal agenesis
  • Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease
  • Congenital skin disorders
  • Upper GI tract obstruction
slide-3
SLIDE 3

10/24/2013 3

UpToDate, 2008

Analyte Patterns Nuchal translucency

  • Increased NT highly associated with

aneuploidy

  • Also with several other abnormalities

Nonchromosomal Defects and Increased Nuchal Translucency

  • Major cardiac defects
  • Diaphragmatic hernia
  • Omphalocele
  • Limb body wall defect
  • Fetal akinesia
  • Noonan syndrome
  • Skeletal dysplasias
  • Other structural and genetic disorders

Euploid fetuses (n) NT (mm) Genetic disorders and neurodevelopmental delay Mangione et al., 2001 202 > 3mm 1/202 (0.5%) Souka et al., 2001 1320 > 3.5 mm 44/1320 (3.3%) Senat et al., 2002 89 > 4 mm 4/62 (6.4%) Bilardo et al., 2007 425 > 95th % 23/425 (5.4%) Total 2271 72/1629 (4.4%) (range 0.5-6.4%)

Genetic Disorders Detected In Fetuses With Enlarged Nuchal Translucency

Bilardo Prenatal Diagnosis 2010

slide-4
SLIDE 4

10/24/2013 4

Fetal cardiac defects and enlarged NT

NT Incidence CHD <2.5mm 0.16% 2.4-3.4mm 1% 3.5-4.5mm 3% 4.5-5.4mm 7% 5.4-6.4mm 20% >6.5mm 30%

Souka, 2005

Abnormal Analytes and 3d Trimester Pregnancy Complications

  • Several patterns of abnormal analytes have been

associated with placental dysfunction

  • Low PAPP-A, low uE3, high AFP, hCG, inhibin
  • 3d trimester pregnancy complications
  • Preeclampsia, early fetal loss, late fetal loss,

preterm delivery, IUGR

  • Risk of adverse outcomes increases with higher levels
  • r with multiple abnormal analytes

Odds Ratios for Outcomes Associated with Abnormal Analytes

Analyte IUFD PTB IUGR PreE PAPP-A <0.29 MoM 3.0 3.3 4.64 1.79 PAPP-A <0.42 MoM 2.15 1.9 2.81 1.54 hCG >2.0 MoM 1.5-4.7 1.7-2.8 1.8-4.8 2.4 AFP >2.5 MoM 4.4-9.8 1.8-4.8 1.6-4.0 3.8 Inh A >2.0 MoM 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 uE3 <0.5 MoM 3.3 2.3

Association between Adverse Outcomes and Serum Analytes

Dugoff, Obstet Gynecol, 2010

slide-5
SLIDE 5

10/24/2013 5

Is detection of abnormal analytes helpful?

Disorder ASA No ASA RR (CI) PreE 9.3% 21.3% 0.47 (0.34-.65) Severe PreE 7% 15% 0.09 (0.02-.37) IUGR 7% 16.3% 0.44 (0.30-.65)

Bujold et al, 2010, Obstet Gynecol Meta-analysis of studies of aspirin in high risk women

ASA decreased risks only when started at <16 weeks gestation

Is detection of abnormal analytes helpful?

Roberge et al, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013 Meta-analysis of studies of aspirin in high risk women

ASA decreased risks only when started at <16 weeks gestation Disorder ASA No ASA RR (CI) Perinatal death 1.1% 4.0% 0.41 (0.19-0.92) Preeclampsia 7.6% 17.9% 0.47 (0.36-0.62) Severe PreE 1.5% 12.3% 0.18 (0.08-0.41) IUGR 8.0% 17.6% 0.46 (0.33-0.64) Preterm birth 4.8% 13.4% 0.35 (0.22-0.57)

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) using Cell Free DNA

  • Tests for aneuploidy by directly sequencing of

fetal DNA, largely derived from placenta

  • Compared with current screening which uses

indirect measurements of protein products

  • NIPT for detection of trisomy 21 has greater

sensitivity and much greater specificity than multiple marker screening

Analysis of cell free DNA

Zhong, X, Holzgreve, W, Glob. libr. women's med 2009

slide-6
SLIDE 6

10/24/2013 6

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) vs First Trimester Screening (FTS)

Disorder Test Detection rate False positive rate

Trisomy 21 NIPT 99.4% 0.15% FTS 94% 5.8% Trisomy 18 NIPT 98.5% 0.2% FTS 100% 0.3% Trisomy 13 NIPT 86% 0.7% FTS 100% 0.3%

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) vs First Trimester Screening (FTS)

Disorder Test Detection rate False positive rate

Trisomy 21 NIPT 99.4% 0.15% FTS 94% 5.8% Trisomy 18 NIPT 98.5% 0.2% FTS 100% 0.3% Trisomy 13 NIPT 86% 0.7% FTS 100% 0.3%

Alamillo et al. 2013

False positive rate of NIPT

As you add additional tests, the false positive rate increases

T21 0.1% T18 0.5% T13 0.7% 45X ~1.0% Other SCA ? Total >2.3%

  • Survival rates of T13, 18 and 21 are relatively low, but

vary

  • Study of karyotype of cytotrophoblast, villous stroma,

chorion, amnion, and cord blood w/T13 and T18 infants

Fetal trisomy

% cells trisomic in cytotrophoblast % cells trisomic in all other tissues

T13, T18 (n=14)

30% (average) 100%

T21 (n=12)

100% 100% NIPT false negatives and positives more likely in T13 and T18 due to underlying biology of fetal and placental development

Placental mosaicism and T13 and 18

Kalousek et al, 1989

slide-7
SLIDE 7

10/24/2013 7

Natural X Chromosome Loss

  • 665 women (0-80yrs)
  • Lymphocyte cultures
  • n 19,650 cells
  • G-banding analysis

for presence of 1 or 2 X chromosomes

Russell et al, 2007

NIPT is more precise for T21, T18

NIPT

Current NT + serum screen

NIPT is more precise for T21, T18

NIPT

Current NT + serum screen Other abnormalities

NIPT is more precise for T21, T18

NIPT

FTS Other abnormalities 8/8 T21 2/3 T18; 1/3 no result 8/8 T21 3/3 T18 7/7 others (45X; triploidy; deletions and duplications)

Nicolaides et al, 2012

slide-8
SLIDE 8

10/24/2013 8

NIPT is more precise for T21, T18

NIPT

FTS Other abnormalities 8/8 T21 2/3 T18; 1/3 no result 8/8 T21 3/3 T18 7/7 others (45X; triploidy; deletions and duplications) 55% (10/18) 100% (18/18)

Nicolaides et al, 2012

“Nearly a third of abnormalities found after first trimester screening are different than expected” Alamillo et al. 2013

  • N=23,329 cases of FTS over 10 years
  • 6.3% screen positive
  • 5.7% for T21; 0.4% for T13/18; 0.3% for both
  • 97 had a chromosome abnormality (1/240)
  • 47 Down syndrome (T21)

(1/500)

  • 22 Trisomy 13 or 18
  • 29 Other chromosome abnormalities
  • Range of severity from mild to lethal
  • Detected by combination of NT and analytes

DS and T18 make up 2/3 of aneuploidies detectable by karyotype

Disorders potentially detectable by serum screening and NIPT NIPT

  • Trisomy 21
  • Trisomy 18
  • Trisomy 13
  • Some sex

chromosomes

Current Screening

  • Trisomy 21
  • Trisomy 18
  • Trisomy 13
  • Some sex chromosomes
  • Triploidy
  • Other rare aneuploidies
  • Congenital heart defects
  • Noonan syndrome
  • Neural tube defects
  • Ventral wall defects
  • Congenital adrenal hypoplasia
  • Smith Lemli Opitz syndrome
  • Steroid sulfatase deficiency
  • Poor OB outcomes (IUGR, PreE, PTB)
slide-9
SLIDE 9

10/24/2013 9

Rate of aneuploidy varies by maternal age

  • >35 yo

43% of abnormalities will be missed by NIPT

  • <35 yo

75% of abnormalities will be missed by NIPT

  • This includes only those that are detectable by karyotype
  • Rate is significantly higher if include those detectable by

chromosomal microarray

ACMG, Statement on Noninvasive Prenatal Screening, 2013

Chromosomal Microarray (CMA) for Prenatal Diagnosis

Diagnostic Yield in Cases with Normal Karyotype

Indication for Testing Clinically Relevant

(N=96)

U/S Anomaly

N=755

6.0% AMA

N=1,966

1.7% Positive Screen

N=729

1.7% Other

N=372

1.3%

Abnormalities detectable per 1000 births

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 20 yo 25yo 30yo 35yo 40yo NIPT Amnio/karyotype Amnio/microarra y Wapner et al 2012; Hook 1983

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10/24/2013 10

Detection rate of FTS: Alamillo et al 2013

N=23,329 patients having FTS

  • N=50 cases of DS
  • DR = 47 (94%)
  • FPR = 1345 (5.8%)
  • N=22 cases of T13 or 18
  • DR = 22 (100%)
  • FPR = 134 (0.6%)

NIPT versus First Trimester Screening

Trisomy 21 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 100% 0.15% First Trimester Screen 94% 5.8%

Alamillo et al, 2013

NIPT versus First Trimester Screening

Trisomy 21 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 100% 0.15% First Trimester Screen 94% 5.8% Trisomy 13/18 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 86-98% 0.97% First Trimester Screen 100% 0.6%

Alamillo et al, 2013

NIPT versus First Trimester Screening

Trisomy 21 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 100% 0.15% First Trimester Screen 94% 5.8% Trisomy 13/18 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 86-98% 0.97% First Trimester Screen 100% 0.6%

Alamillo et al, 2013

slide-11
SLIDE 11

10/24/2013 11

NIPT versus First Trimester Screening

Trisomy 21 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 100% 0.15% First Trimester Screen 94% 5.8% Trisomy 13/18 Detection Rate False Positive Rate NIPT 86-98% 0.97% First Trimester Screen 100% 0.6%

Alamillo et al, 2013

Disorder Prevalence Common trisomies (13,18,21) 0.2% Other chromosome abnormalities 0.4% Microdeletions and duplications 1.5% Mendelian Genetic Disorders 0.4% Congenital heart defects 0.3% Other structural defects 3% Adverse OB outcomes 15-20% Total ~25%

Causes of Birth Defects and Other Adverse Perinatal Outcomes: It’s Not All Down Syndrome

Disorder Prevalence NIPT Integrated screening CVS/amnio Common trisomies (13,18,21) 0.2% Yes Yes Yes Other major chromosome abnormalities 0.4% No Some Yes Microdeletions and duplications 1.5% No Some Yes (array) Mendelian Genetic Disorders 0.4% No Some If requested Congenital heart defects 0.3% No Yes (NT) No Other structural defects 3% No Yes (NT) No Adverse OB outcomes 15-20% No Yes (serum analytes) No Total ~25% 0.2% 25% 2%

  • N=611 pregnancies
  • Rates of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and SGA were not

associated with cell free fetal DNA concentration

slide-12
SLIDE 12

10/24/2013 12

Prenatal Genetic Screening Comparison

Integrated Screening

  • 2 blood tests + NT ultrasound
  • With sequential screen, patients

get two results over 6+ weeks

  • Complex counseling
  • Stringent GA criteria
  • Relatively high screen positive

rate and good, not great, detection rate

  • NT requires training and on-

going QA

  • NT very operator dependent

+ Detects additional disorders + Adjusts results by a priori risk

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

+ Single blood test anytime

after 10 weeks GA

+ Excellent performance =

more straightforward counseling

+ Fewer invasive procedures + One result that is highly

reliable

  • Tests for few conditions
  • Expensive
  • High test failure rate, esp.

with high BMI

  • Not validated in all subgroups
  • Doesn’t adjust for a priori risk

How Does Test Performance Differ with Risk?

Low Risk (age 25; 1/1000)

N=1000 1 T21 999 not T21 1 TP, 0 FN 2 FP, 998 TN OAPR = 1/3

High Risk (age 38; 1/100)

N=1000 10 T21 990 not T21 10 TP, 0 FN 2 FP, 988 TN OAPR = 10/12 or 5/6

(T21: Assume >99% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity)

How Does Test Performance Differ with Risk?

Low Risk (age 25; 1/8,000) N=10,000 1 T13 9,999 not T13 1 TP, 0 FN 100 FP, 9900 TN OAPR = 1/100 High Risk (age 38; 1/1000) N=10,000 10 T13 9,990 not T13 10 TP, 0 FN 100 FP, 9890 TN OAPR = 10/100 = 1/10

(T13: Assume 99% sensitivity and 99% specificity)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

10/24/2013 13

Where does NIPT fit?

Is this an outstanding screening test or an imperfect

diagnostic test?

Is this best used as a secondary screening test, or as a

first tier screening test?

Are we ready to abandon current screening in favor of

NIPT?

Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater…..

Hype cycle of new technology

slide-14
SLIDE 14

10/24/2013 14

  • Report on 8 false positive cases of T13 or T18
  • It is estimated that over 100,000 cases were done last year
  • Inflated expectations, lack of understanding, aggressive

marketing and competition are problematic

slide-15
SLIDE 15

10/24/2013 15

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society

Analytic validity: ability of test to measure particular

genetic characteristics (eg DNA sequence) accurately and reliably in a given specimen

Clinical validity: test’s accuracy in detecting the

presence of, or predicting risk for, a health condition or phenotype

Clinical utility: balance between health related benefits

and harms that can ensue from a genetic test

Personalized Medicine 2008

Summary

  • NIPT has great value in detection of common trisomies.
  • Multiple marker screening can play a much broader role in

evaluating all pregnancies than NIPT.

  • First trimester screening addresses not only fetal genetic

risk, but also fetal structural abnormalities and pregnancy complications.

  • Relative benefits of each test remain unclear, but may vary

by patient risk category.

  • Further study urgently needed before standard of care is

completely changed.

Thank you!