Prospective head-to-head comparison of accuracy of two sequencing platforms for screening for fetal aneuploidy by cell-free DNA: the PEGASUS study

François Rousseau, Sylvie Langlois, Jo-Ann Johnson, Jean Gekas, Emmanuel Bujold, François Audibert, Mark Walker, Sylvie Giroux, André Caron, Valérie Clément, Jonatan Blais, Tina MacLeod, Richard Moore, Julie Gauthier, Loubna Jouan, Alexandre Laporte, Ousmane Diallo, Jeremy Parker, Lucas Swanson, Yongjun Zhao, Yves Labelle, Yves Giguère, Jean-Claude Forest, Julian Little, Aly Karsan, Guy Rouleau, François Rousseau, Sylvie Langlois, Jo-Ann Johnson, Jean Gekas, Emmanuel Bujold, François Audibert, Mark Walker, Sylvie Giroux, André Caron, Valérie Clément, Jonatan Blais, Tina MacLeod, Richard Moore, Julie Gauthier, Loubna Jouan, Alexandre Laporte, Ousmane Diallo, Jeremy Parker, Lucas Swanson, Yongjun Zhao, Yves Labelle, Yves Giguère, Jean-Claude Forest, Julian Little, Aly Karsan, Guy Rouleau

Abstract

We compared clinical validity of two non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) methods for fetal trisomies 13, 18, 21, and monosomy X. We recruited prospectively 2203 women at high risk of fetal aneuploidy and 1807 at baseline risk. Three-hundred and twenty-nine euploid samples were randomly removed. The remaining 1933 high risk and 1660 baseline-risk plasma aliquots were assigned randomly between four laboratories and tested with two index NIPS tests, blind to maternal variables and pregnancy outcomes. The two index tests used massively parallel shotgun sequencing (semiconductor-based and optical-based). The reference standard for all fetuses was invasive cytogenetic analysis or clinical examination at birth and postnatal follow-up. For each chromosome of interest, chromosomal ratios were calculated (number of reads for chromosome/total number of reads). Euploid samples' mean chromosomal ratio coefficients of variation were 0.48 (T21), 0.34 (T18), and 0.31 (T13). According to the reference standard, there were 155 cases of T21, 49 T18, 8 T13 and 22 45,X. Using a fetal fraction ≥4% to call results and a chromosomal ratio z-score of ≥3 to report a positive result, detection rates (DR), and false positive rates (FPR) were not statistically different between platforms: mean DR 99% (T21), 100%(T18, T13); 79%(45,X); FPR < 0.3% for T21, T18, T13, and <0.6% for 45,X. Both methods' negative predictive values in high-risk pregnancies were >99.8%, except for 45,X(>99.6%). Threshold analysis in high-risk pregnancies with different fetal fractions and z-score cut-offs suggested that a z-score cutoff to 3.5 for positive results improved test accuracy. Both sequencing platforms showed equivalent and excellent clinical validity.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01925742.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Participants flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Individual z-scores and reference standard result for all fetuses tested with both index tests. Scatter plot of z-scores for same 3593 plasma samples comparing each index test (Proton (Y-axis) vs HiSeq (X-axis)) for chromosome 13, chromosome 18, chromosome 21, and chromosome X. Green triangles represent fetuses which, according to the reference standard, do not have the specific aneuploidy identified in the plot, while red circles represent fetuses that have the specific chromosome aneuploidy. Blue squares correspond to mosaic fetuses for the specific chromosome of interest, while yellow circles are triploid fetuses according to the reference standard. The lower left dashed green box in each plot shows the decision limit: z-score = 3

References

    1. Alberry M, Maddocks D, Jones M, Abdel Hadi M, Abdel-Fattah S, Avent N, et al. Free fetal DNA in maternal plasma in anembryonic pregnancies: confirmation that the origin is the trophoblast. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27:415–8. doi: 10.1002/pd.1700.
    1. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL, Redman CW, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet (Lond, Engl) 1997;350:485–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02174-0.
    1. Badeau M, Lindsay C, Blais J, Nshimyumukiza L, Takwoingi Y, Langlois S, et al. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:Cd011767.
    1. Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:302–14. doi: 10.1002/uog.17484.
    1. ACOG: Committee Opinion No. 640: cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015.
    1. Audibert F, De Bie I, Johnson JA, Okun N, Wilson RD, Armour C, et al. No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG guideline: update on prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, fetal anomalies, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39:805–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.01.032.
    1. Practice Bulletin No. 163 Summary: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127: 979–81.
    1. HAS: Place des tests ADN libre circulant dans le sang maternel dans le dépistage de la T21 fœtale. France, 2017.
    1. Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Gyselaers W. The non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) for trisomy 21—health economic aspects—synthesis: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Brussels. Belgium: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2014.
    1. Juvet LK, Ormstad SS, Stoinska-Schneider A, Solberg B, Arentz-Hansen H, Kvamme MK, et al. NIPH systematic reviews: executive summaries: Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (NIPT) for Identification of Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Oslo, Norway: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2016.
    1. Liao C, Yin AH, Peng CF, Fu F, Yang JX, Li R, et al. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of common aneuploidies by semiconductor sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:7415–20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321997111.
    1. Morrissy AS, Garzia L, Shih DJ, Zuyderduyn S, Huang X, Skowron P, et al. Divergent clonal selection dominates medulloblastoma at recurrence. Nature. 2016;529:351–7. doi: 10.1038/nature16478.
    1. Kim SK, Hannum G, Geis J, Tynan J, Hogg G, Zhao C, et al. Determination of fetal DNA fraction from the plasma of pregnant women using sequence read counts. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:810–5. doi: 10.1002/pd.4615.
    1. Lo KK, Boustred C, Chitty LS, Plagnol V. RAPIDR: an analysis package for non-invasive prenatal testing of aneuploidy. Bioinformatics (Oxf, Engl) 2014;30:2965–7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu419.
    1. Blais J, Giroux S, Caron A, Clement V, Dionne-Laporte A, Jouan L, et al. Non-invasive prenatal aneuploidy testing: critical diagnostic performance parameters predict sample z-score values. Clin Biochem. 2018;59:69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.06.015.
    1. Murdoch B, Ravitsky V, Ogbogu U, Ali-Khan S, Bertier G, Birko S, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing and the unveiling of an impaired translation process. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39:10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2016.09.004.
    1. Chen S, Li S, Xie W, Li X, Zhang C, Jiang H, et al. Performance comparison between rapid sequencing platforms for ultra-low coverage sequencing strategy. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e92192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092192.
    1. Brady P, Brison N, Van Den Bogaert K, de Ravel T, Peeters H, Van Esch H, et al. Clinical implementation of NIPT—technical and biological challenges. Clin Genet. 2016;89:523–30. doi: 10.1111/cge.12598.
    1. Perneger TV. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1998;316:1236–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236.
    1. Blais J, Lavoie SB, Giroux S, Bussieres J, Lindsay C, Dionne J, et al. Risk of misdiagnosis due to allele dropout and false-positive PCR artifacts in molecular diagnostics: analysis of 30,769 genotypes. J Mol Diagn. 2015;17:505–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.04.004.
    1. Rousseau F, Gancberg D, Schimmel H, Neumaier M, Bureau A, Mamotte C, et al. Considerations for the development of a reference method for sequencing of haploid DNA—an opinion paper on behalf of the IFCC Committee on Molecular Diagnostics, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47:1343–50. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.319.
    1. Rousseau F, Lindsay C, Charland M, Labelle Y, Bergeron J, Blancquaert I, et al. Development and description of GETT: a genetic testing evidence tracking tool. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010;48:1397–407. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2010.291.
    1. Chen B, Dequeker E, Dong J, Emmadi R, Gordon J, Howell R, et al. Quality management for molecular genetic testing. Approved Guideline: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 1st edn. CLSI document MM20-A; 2012.
    1. CLSI: Nucleic acid sequencing methods in diagnostic laboratory medicine: approved guideline. CLSI document MM09-A2. 2nd edn. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA, 2014.
    1. Rehm HL, Bale SJ, Bayrak-Toydemir P, Berg JS, Brown KK, Deignan JL, et al. ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:733–47. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.92.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe