
ABSTRACTIntroductionGenome‐wide non‐invasive prenatal testing (gwNIPT) has screening limitations for detectable chromosomal conditions and cannot detect microdeletions/microduplications (MD) or triploidy. Thickened nuchal translucency (NT) only detects around 10% of these cases.MethodsA 4‐year retrospective study of singleton pregnancies undergoing first‐line gwNIPT screening with subsequent CVS or amniocentesis. All MD cases, with or without gwNIPT screening, were also analyzed.ResultsAmong 919 pregnancies with gwNIPT and invasive testing, 338 had a single chromosomal abnormality, with 9 false negative gwNIPT results (2.9%) and 26 undetectable abnormalities (18 MD, 8 triploidy) (7.7%). Twelve cases had a dual chromosomal abnormality and 4 returned a low‐risk gwNIPT result. Only three (9%) of the “missed cases” had a large NT and two of these also had a structural abnormality. Approximately 90% of chromosomal anomalies missed by gwNIPT were detected by invasive prenatal testing indicated by one or more of the following: failed NIPT (9%), low PAPP‐A (12%), early growth restriction (37%) and structural anomalies at pre‐NIPT, 13‐ or 20‐week ultrasounds (51%).ConclusionMost chromosomal abnormalities missed or unable to be found by gwNIPT are detected due to growth restriction or structural anomalies, not an enlarged NT. Failed NIPT and low PAPP‐A concentrations contributed to detection.
Chromosome Aberrations, Adult, Pregnancy, Noninvasive Prenatal Testing, Amniocentesis, Humans, Original Article, Female, Chromosome Disorders, Nuchal Translucency Measurement, Retrospective Studies
Chromosome Aberrations, Adult, Pregnancy, Noninvasive Prenatal Testing, Amniocentesis, Humans, Original Article, Female, Chromosome Disorders, Nuchal Translucency Measurement, Retrospective Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
