Medical Experts
Bosworth
Andersen
Genzen
Ji
LaGrave
Prenatal testing is offered to all pregnant individuals to identify pregnancies with a chromosomal disorder, such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) or an open neural tube defect (ONTD). , , Prenatal genetic testing comprises two categories of testing: screening and diagnosis, which are offered in addition to or in conjunction with an ultrasound performed at 11 to 13 weeks. , Maternal serum screening (MSS) and prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening estimate a patient’s risk of carrying a fetus with a chromosomal disorder. , , , , In addition, MSS assesses risk for ONTDs. These tests are noninvasive. Prenatal cfDNA screening, previously referred to as noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is more sensitive and specific than MSS. , , , Abnormal results should be followed by confirmatory genetic diagnostic testing. , , This topic focuses on prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy and neural tube defects; for more information on the use of laboratory tests in carrier screening for genetic conditions, refer to the ARUP Consult Carrier Screening for Genetic Disorders topic.
Prenatal genetic diagnostic testing is used to determine whether a fetus has certain genetic disorders before birth. This testing is invasive and carries a small risk of miscarriage. The two most common forms of testing, karyotyping and cytogenomic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray, are the most definitive forms of prenatal genetic testing available to identify chromosome abnormalities and copy number variants in a fetus. , , , No one prenatal genetic test is superior in all situations, and clinicians and patients should understand the risks, limitations, and benefits of available testing options so that an informed choice about testing can be made. , , , , ,
Quick Answers for Clinicians
Maternal serum screening (MSS) was previously the standard prenatal testing option for chromosomal abnormalities. MSS measures biochemical markers present in maternal blood serum to assess a pregnant individual’s risk of having a fetus with a fetal aneuploidy or an open neural tube defect (ONTD). Prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, previously referred to as noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), was introduced more recently and is more sensitive and specific than MSS for detecting traditionally screened aneuploidies (trisomies 21, 18, and 13). , , , , , Prenatal cfDNA screening analyzes genomic cfDNA circulating in the maternal bloodstream.
Both tests have advantages and disadvantages to consider. Prenatal cfDNA screening is more comprehensive and accurate than MSS and can detect more aneuploidies than MSS. It also has higher detection rates for trisomies 21 and 18. Reports for prenatal cfDNA screening usually include posttest risks based on positive predictive value (PPV), or the likelihood that a fetus actually has the condition assessed. By contrast, MSS is less expensive and is less likely than prenatal cfDNA screening to produce inconclusive, incidental, or no results. , , , Reports for MSS include posttest probabilities for each assessed condition.
No. Although maternal serum screening (MSS) tests and prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening are often cheaper, faster, and safer than prenatal genetic diagnostic tests, they do not evaluate for as many conditions as chromosome or cytogenomic microarray (CMA) analysis. , , , If there are no abnormal findings on an initial ultrasound (performed at 11 to 13 weeks) in a pregnancy believed to be at low risk for fetal abnormalities, MSS or prenatal cfDNA screening is an acceptable first step for prenatal testing. ,
The limitations of MSS and prenatal cfDNA screening are especially relevant for pregnant individuals who have an increased probability of fetal aneuploidy. , , , If a patient would opt for diagnostic testing regardless of the MSS or cfDNA result, or if abnormal findings are detected on ultrasound, then it is reasonable to proceed directly to diagnostic testing. , , , , , , Performing screening before diagnostic testing may delay diagnosis and has the potential to provide false reassurance if results are negative.
Yes. Babies may be born with birth defects and/or genetic syndromes, even when the most extensive testing yields negative results. Karyotyping, microarray, and sequence analysis all target specific types of genetic abnormalities. In a significant number of affected pregnancies, all three tests will be negative. , Medical genetics experts are incorporating new ways to test for genetic abnormalities, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS). The nuances of new methodologies must be well understood before they are offered to families in a prenatal setting; however, WES or WGS may be considered when more routine tests fail to yield results. ,
No. Research is ongoing to determine the utility of “expanded” prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening in detecting conditions not traditionally screened for, such as rare autosomal trisomies, subchromosomal imbalances, and microdeletion and microduplication syndromes. However, currently, there is insufficient evidence to support these use cases. As such, use of expanded prenatal cfDNA screening in routine prenatal screening is not recommended. ,
Twin pregnancies present unique challenges when it comes to interpreting prenatal testing results. The accuracy of maternal serum screening (MSS) is reduced for twins because the concentrations of measured markers in maternal blood are produced by both fetuses, and this confounds assigning individual risks for each twin. , , Prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening provides higher positive predictive values among twin pregnancies when compared with MSS but is still associated with test failures. Insufficient fetal fraction (FF) may affect test results. Prenatal cfDNA screening is not recommended when a patient has had a twin demise/vanishing twin. The demised twin’s placenta may still shed aneuploid cfDNA and thus cause false-positive results. , , ,
Indications for Testing
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommend offering MSS and prenatal cfDNA screening to all pregnant individuals. , ACOG, SMFM, and ACMG also recommend offering both prenatal screening and diagnostic testing to all pregnant patients. Cytogenomic microarray (CMA) analysis is recommended for fetuses with abnormalities detected by ultrasound. , , , , Patients with structurally normal fetuses who are undergoing invasive prenatal diagnostic testing may have either fetal karyotyping or CMA testing. , , ,
Laboratory Testing
Prenatal genetic tests vary greatly in terms of the conditions included, the performance characteristics and limitations, and the risks of specimen collection. MSS and prenatal cfDNA screening tests are used to assess whether a pregnant individual is at increased risk of having a fetus affected by certain chromosomal abnormalities, and, in the case of MSS, ONTDs. Neither MSS nor prenatal cfDNA screening are considered diagnostic because both tests carry the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results. , , Regardless of the results of prenatal screening, diagnostic testing should be offered to all patients with abnormal ultrasound findings (including nuchal translucency [NT] of ≥3.5 mm at 11 to 13 weeks). , Karyotyping and CMA, both diagnostic methods, determine whether chromosome abnormalities and/or copy number variants are present in a fetus. This testing is performed on samples obtained through chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis, both of which carry a small risk of miscarriage.
Patients with negative test results should be further educated about their risk, which depends on the clinical context and the testing performed. , , ,
Maternal Serum Screening
MSS is performed during the first trimester, second trimester, or both by measuring biochemical markers present in maternal blood serum to assess risk for fetal aneuploidy and ONTDs. MSS may be performed in combination with an early ultrasound to assess for NT. MSS tests that include both first- and second-trimester markers (ie, stepwise, contingency, or integrated screening) have the highest detection rate. ,
Stepwise Screeninga | Contingency Screening | Integrated Screening |
---|---|---|
All patients screened in first trimesterb NT measurement required Pregnancies with low to moderate risk: rescreen in second trimester Combined result reportede | All patients screened in first trimesterb NT measurement required Pregnancies with intermediate risk: rescreen in second trimester Combined result reportede | All patients screened in first and second trimestersc NT measurement not requiredd Combined result reported |
aCVS should be available if this option is offered. bFirst trimester results are reported immediately. cFirst trimester results are withheld for later calculation. This increases the likelihood of detection and reduces the potential for a false-positive result. dNT measurement may be included (ie, full integrated testing). eFor individuals who receive second trimester screening based on risk. |
After screening is complete, if errors in clinical information are discovered (eg, there is a new due date based on ultrasound measurement), reinterpretation of results may be necessary. , , Residual risks should be discussed when test results are negative. , Diagnostic (invasive) testing and genetic counseling should be offered to patients with high-risk MSS results or abnormal NT results. A comprehensive anatomy survey ultrasound is indicated in these scenarios and cannot be replaced by prenatal screening for aneuploidies. , , Performing prenatal cfDNA screening before confirmatory testing delays diagnosis and misses certain chromosome abnormalities (eg, those detectable by MSS). , , ,
Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening
Prenatal cfDNA screening is more sensitive and specific than MSS for traditionally screened aneuploidies (trisomies 21, 18, and 13) and has been validated in both high-prevalence and general populations. This form of screening analyzes genomic fetal cfDNA circulating in the maternal bloodstream and can be performed from as early as 10 weeks of gestation until the end of pregnancy. Professional societies endorse this test for women with average or increased risk of having a baby with a chromosome abnormality. , ,
Although prenatal cfDNA screening has high detection rates and low false-positive rates, its positive predictive value varies depending on prevalence and pretest probability of an assessed condition, and results are nondiagnostic. , , , For more information, refer to Positive Predictive Value of a High-Risk Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Result for Various Increased Pretest Risk Levels and for Various Gestational Ages and Maternal Ages.
Several factors may contribute to test failure or false-positive test results, such as very low fetal fraction (FF, or the proportion of fetal cfDNA detected in a specimen), confined placental mosaicism, twin demise, discordant aneuploidy among twins, maternal mosaicism, or maternal medical conditions (eg, malignancy). Individuals who have no-call results (ie, the test did not yield a result or the lab could not run the test) and uninterpretable test results are at increased risk for chromosomal abnormalities. , , ,
Diagnostic testing and genetic counseling should be offered to patients with a high-risk cfDNA result, no result, or a low-risk result in the presence of an abnormal ultrasound. , , Residual risks should also be discussed. , Irreversible clinical decisions should never be based solely on cfDNA results.
Cytogenomic Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Microarray
CMA detects aneuploidy and can also detect copy number variants across the genome (deletions and duplications) that are below the resolution of karyotype analysis. CMA is recommended for pregnancies with a fetal structural abnormality detected by ultrasound, unless the observed anomaly is strongly associated with an aneuploidy syndrome. , , , , However, CMA may be performed as a first-line test in pregnancies with no risk factors. , Pregnant individuals with a high probability of microdeletion syndromes due to family history or prenatal cfDNA screening should have CMA. , , In most cases, CMA replaces the need to perform fetal karyotyping. , CMA of prenatal samples usually has a faster turnaround time compared with karyotyping.
Notably, CMA cannot be used to identify balanced chromosome rearrangements or characterize abnormalities. CMA also carries a greater chance of incidental findings and variants of uncertain clinical significance compared with karyotype analysis.
If there are concerning ultrasound findings and CMA results are normal, further testing, such as whole exome sequencing (WES), whole genome sequencing (WGS), or a genetic panel that corresponds with clinical findings, may be considered. , Targeted sequencing may be performed if there is a known familial variant.
Chromosome Analysis (Giemsa Band Karyotyping)
Karyotyping is performed to detect changes in chromosome number associated with aneuploidy (eg, trisomy 21) and to characterize the arrangement of structural changes (eg, translocations, inversions, and large deletions and duplications). Chromosome analysis also identifies balanced rearrangements, which cannot be detected by CMA.
Karyotyping has limited resolution compared with CMA but is the preferred testing methodology in two situations: first, when an individual would like definitive testing but does not want to have CMA due to the small chance of incidental findings, variants of uncertain significance, and/or for financial reasons, and second, when a fetus has an increased probability of a specific aneuploidy syndrome (eg, trisomy 21 or trisomy 13) due to family history or ultrasound findings. , , ,
Prenatal FISH Analysis
Prenatal genetic testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assesses small regions within five chromosomes: 21, 18, 13, X, and Y. Performing FISH without karyotype or CMA analysis is not recommended. This testing provides limited information and may rarely return false-positive or false-negative results. Clinical decision-making should not be based on FISH results alone, except when there is corroborating evidence of the diagnosis, such as ultrasound anomalies.
Amniotic Fluid Alpha-Fetoprotein
When a fetus has an ONTD, such as meningomyelocele or anencephaly, the amniotic fluid has an elevated alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) concentration and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity. The best option for testing is reflexive and involves measuring AFP from amniotic fluid first. If the amniotic fluid AFP is elevated, then reflexive testing is performed to determine if AChE activity is present. Reflexive testing increases the specificity for ONTD detection because elevated AFP without the presence of AChE activity can be caused by other conditions and pregnancy complications, such as fetal renal disease and intrauterine bleeding. This reflex pattern offers a sensitivity and specificity for anencephaly of 98% and >99%, respectively, and for open spina bifida, 96% and >99%. Alternatively, spina bifida and anencephaly in a fetus may be confirmed by targeted ultrasound exam.
Comparison of Prenatal Genetic Tests
Condition(s) | Method | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
MSS | cfDNA Screening | CMA | Karyotype Analysis | |
Neural tube defects | Detected | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected |
Aneuploidy | Detecteda | Detectedb | Detected | Detected |
Chromosomal copy number variants (deletions/duplications) | Not detected | Detected (in some cases) | Detected | Not detected |
Absence of heterozygosityc | Not detected | Not detected | Detected | Not detected |
Uniparental disomy | Not detected | Not detected | Indirectly detectedd | Not detected |
Single-gene disorders | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected |
Mosaicism | Not detected | Not detected | Detected (in some cases) | Detectede |
aTrisomy 21 and 18. bTrisomy 21, 18, 13 and sometimes additional trisomies, depending on version. cDue to common ancestry or uniparental disomy. dMay be suspected due to absence of heterozygosity. eThreshold determined by colony count. |
ARUP Laboratory Tests
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA)
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA)
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA)
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay
Massively Parallel Sequencing
Giemsa Band
Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)
Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)
Giemsa Band
Giemsa Band/Genomic Microarray (Oligo-SNP Array)
Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)
Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)
Genomic Microarray (Oligo-SNP Array)
Qualitative Gel Electrophoresis/Radial Immunodiffusion
Quantitative Chemiluminescent Immunoassay/Electrophoresis
References
-
32976375
Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, No. 226. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(4):859-867.
-
26938573
Practice Bulletin No. 162: Prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):e108-e122.
-
36524989
Dungan JS, Klugman S, Darilek S, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome abnormalities in a general-risk population: An evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2023;25(2):100336.
-
37076973
Hui L, Ellis K, Mayen D, et al. Position statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis on the use of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of fetal chromosomal conditions in singleton pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2023;43(7):814-828.
-
28573775
Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, et al. ISUOG updated consensus statement on the impact of cfDNA aneuploidy testing on screening policies and prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(6):815-816.
-
19915395
Driscoll DA, Gross SJ, Professional Practice Guidelines Committee. Screening for fetal aneuploidy and neural tube defects. Genet Med. 2009;11(11):818-821.
-
19690509
Palomaki GE, Lee JE, Canick JA, et al. Technical standards and guidelines: prenatal screening for Down syndrome that includes first-trimester biochemistry and/or ultrasound measurements [published correction appears in Genet Med. 2009;11(12):873]. Genet Med. 2009;11(9):669-681.
-
31700163
Palomaki GE, Bupp C, Gregg AR, et al. Laboratory screening and diagnosis of open neural tube defects, 2019 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(3):462-474.
-
28397325
Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, et al. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis [update in Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(6):734-742]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(3):302-314.
-
28726804
Cherry AM, Akkari YM, Barr KM, et al. Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results: a clinical laboratory practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2017;19(8):845-850.
-
27101119
Practice Bulletin No. 162 Summary: Prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):976-978.
-
27427470
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), Dugoff L, Norton ME, et al. The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis [published correction appears in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(2):180]. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):B2-B9.
-
27875474
Committee on Genetics and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Committee Opinion No.682: Microarrays and next-generation sequencing technology: the use of advanced genetic diagnostic tools in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):e262-e268.
-
28333821
Committee Opinion No. 693: Counseling about genetic testing and communication of genetic test results. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):e96-e101.
-
28333813
Committee Opinion No. 693 Summary: Counseling about genetic testing and communication of genetic test results. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):771-772.
-
26468681
Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening [published correction in Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(11):1438-50]. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(11):1592.
-
26709085
Norton ME, Baer RJ, Wapner RJ, et al. Cell-free DNA vs sequential screening for the detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(6):727.e1-6.
-
25830321
Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(17):1589-1597.
-
29315690
International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis; Society for Maternal and Fetal Medicine; Perinatal Quality Foundation. Joint position statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38(1):6-9.
-
31911674
Monaghan KG, Leach NT, Pekarek D, et al. The use of fetal exome sequencing in prenatal diagnosis: a points to consider document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(4):675-680.
-
33016373
Palomaki GE, Chiu RWK, Pertile MD, et al. International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis position statement: cell free (cf)DNA screening for Down syndrome in multiple pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41(10):1222-1232.
-
31165549
Gil MM, Galeva S, Jani J, et al. Screening for trisomies by cfDNA testing of maternal blood in twin pregnancy: update of The Fetal Medicine Foundation results and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(6):734-742.
-
26715197
Taneja PA, Snyder HL, de Feo E, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing in the general obstetric population: clinical performance and counseling considerations in over 85 000 cases. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(3):237-243.
-
11339659
Test and Technology Transfer Committee, American College of Medical Genetics. Technical and clinical assessment of fluorescence in situ hybridization: an ACMG/ASHG position statement. I. Technical considerations. Test and Technology Transfer Committee. Genet Med. 2000;2(6):356-361.