Factors Associated With Informative Redraw After an Initial No Result in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

OBJECTIVE:Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) sometimes fails to provide a test result, usually as a result of low cell-free DNA fetal fraction. We investigated how initial fetal fraction, maternal weight, gestational age, and time between blood sampling contribute to obtaining an informative result...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 2018-08, Vol.132 (2), p.428-435
Hauptverfasser: Benn, Peter, Valenti, Elizabeth, Shah, Shailen, Martin, Kimberly, Demko, Zachary
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 435
container_issue 2
container_start_page 428
container_title Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)
container_volume 132
creator Benn, Peter
Valenti, Elizabeth
Shah, Shailen
Martin, Kimberly
Demko, Zachary
description OBJECTIVE:Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) sometimes fails to provide a test result, usually as a result of low cell-free DNA fetal fraction. We investigated how initial fetal fraction, maternal weight, gestational age, and time between blood sampling contribute to obtaining an informative result when a redraw is performed. METHODS:We performed a retrospective data review of NIPT samples received between January and October 2016 by a commercial laboratory, where the initial blood draw did not yield a result and a second sample was drawn between 5 and 28 days after the initial sampling. We included cases with fetal fraction less than 2.8% (the threshold for “no result” in this laboratory) and those with higher fetal fraction but where the NIPT results could not be interpreted with high confidence. RESULTS:For 4,018 cases in which a redraw was recommended, a result was obtained for the second sample in 2,835 cases (70.6%) (95% CI 69.1–72.0%). For the 2,959 cases with insufficient fetal fraction, there was a result for the second sample in 1,861 cases (62.9%) (95% CI 61.1–64.6%). For this subset, the average increase in fetal fraction was 1.2% with an average interval between draws of 14 days. Informative redraw rate was strongly dependent on maternal weight and fetal fraction measured at the first draw. Gestational age was not an important determinant. Informative redraw rate increased rapidly over the first 8 days after the initial draw and more slowly thereafter. CONCLUSION:Based on fetal fraction in the initial sample, maternal weight, and interval between blood draws, women can be provided with a personalized estimate of their likelihood of a result on redraw. This should aid in the counseling of women faced with the choice of reattempting NIPT, conventional screening, or an invasive diagnostic test.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002728
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2068912798</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2068912798</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4018-c5cc70bb1ce66b2488ffe68a49e0d542d7f810e97f54160ddd213230f6747d3f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LxDAQhoMoun78A5EevVTz1SY5LuIXiIooeivZZOJGu60mqYv_3iyrIh40lzAzzzsDD0K7BB8QrMTh-Or0AP94VFC5gkZEClZSxh5W0Sg3VSkk5xtoM8anDJFasXW0QZVSVeZHCE60SX2IxTjG3nidwBb3Pk2L8871YaaTf4PiBmzQ82LsEoRCd3nmk9dtcdnnURzaVPguF53v3nRcBK4DdDpl4hZi8t3jNlpzuo2w8_lvobuT49ujs_Li6vT8aHxRGo6JLE1ljMCTCTFQ1xPKpXQOaqm5AmwrTq1wkmBQwlWc1NhaSwmjDLtacGGZY1tof7n3JfSvQ77dzHw00La6g36IDcW1VIQKJTPKl6gJfYwBXPMS_EyH94bgZiG4yYKb34JzbO_zwjCZgf0OfRnNgFwC877NuuJzO8whNFPQbZr-t5v_EV1gNa1wSbMqLHNVLoKEfQB6mpb-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2068912798</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Factors Associated With Informative Redraw After an Initial No Result in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Benn, Peter ; Valenti, Elizabeth ; Shah, Shailen ; Martin, Kimberly ; Demko, Zachary</creator><creatorcontrib>Benn, Peter ; Valenti, Elizabeth ; Shah, Shailen ; Martin, Kimberly ; Demko, Zachary</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE:Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) sometimes fails to provide a test result, usually as a result of low cell-free DNA fetal fraction. We investigated how initial fetal fraction, maternal weight, gestational age, and time between blood sampling contribute to obtaining an informative result when a redraw is performed. METHODS:We performed a retrospective data review of NIPT samples received between January and October 2016 by a commercial laboratory, where the initial blood draw did not yield a result and a second sample was drawn between 5 and 28 days after the initial sampling. We included cases with fetal fraction less than 2.8% (the threshold for “no result” in this laboratory) and those with higher fetal fraction but where the NIPT results could not be interpreted with high confidence. RESULTS:For 4,018 cases in which a redraw was recommended, a result was obtained for the second sample in 2,835 cases (70.6%) (95% CI 69.1–72.0%). For the 2,959 cases with insufficient fetal fraction, there was a result for the second sample in 1,861 cases (62.9%) (95% CI 61.1–64.6%). For this subset, the average increase in fetal fraction was 1.2% with an average interval between draws of 14 days. Informative redraw rate was strongly dependent on maternal weight and fetal fraction measured at the first draw. Gestational age was not an important determinant. Informative redraw rate increased rapidly over the first 8 days after the initial draw and more slowly thereafter. CONCLUSION:Based on fetal fraction in the initial sample, maternal weight, and interval between blood draws, women can be provided with a personalized estimate of their likelihood of a result on redraw. This should aid in the counseling of women faced with the choice of reattempting NIPT, conventional screening, or an invasive diagnostic test.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-7844</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-233X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002728</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29995728</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Biomarkers - blood ; Body Weight ; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - blood ; False Negative Reactions ; Female ; Gestational Age ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Maternal Serum Screening Tests - methods ; Maternal Serum Screening Tests - standards ; Maternal Serum Screening Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Middle Aged ; Pregnancy ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 2018-08, Vol.132 (2), p.428-435</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</rights><rights>2018 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4018-c5cc70bb1ce66b2488ffe68a49e0d542d7f810e97f54160ddd213230f6747d3f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4018-c5cc70bb1ce66b2488ffe68a49e0d542d7f810e97f54160ddd213230f6747d3f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29995728$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Benn, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valenti, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Shailen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Kimberly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demko, Zachary</creatorcontrib><title>Factors Associated With Informative Redraw After an Initial No Result in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing</title><title>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</title><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE:Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) sometimes fails to provide a test result, usually as a result of low cell-free DNA fetal fraction. We investigated how initial fetal fraction, maternal weight, gestational age, and time between blood sampling contribute to obtaining an informative result when a redraw is performed. METHODS:We performed a retrospective data review of NIPT samples received between January and October 2016 by a commercial laboratory, where the initial blood draw did not yield a result and a second sample was drawn between 5 and 28 days after the initial sampling. We included cases with fetal fraction less than 2.8% (the threshold for “no result” in this laboratory) and those with higher fetal fraction but where the NIPT results could not be interpreted with high confidence. RESULTS:For 4,018 cases in which a redraw was recommended, a result was obtained for the second sample in 2,835 cases (70.6%) (95% CI 69.1–72.0%). For the 2,959 cases with insufficient fetal fraction, there was a result for the second sample in 1,861 cases (62.9%) (95% CI 61.1–64.6%). For this subset, the average increase in fetal fraction was 1.2% with an average interval between draws of 14 days. Informative redraw rate was strongly dependent on maternal weight and fetal fraction measured at the first draw. Gestational age was not an important determinant. Informative redraw rate increased rapidly over the first 8 days after the initial draw and more slowly thereafter. CONCLUSION:Based on fetal fraction in the initial sample, maternal weight, and interval between blood draws, women can be provided with a personalized estimate of their likelihood of a result on redraw. This should aid in the counseling of women faced with the choice of reattempting NIPT, conventional screening, or an invasive diagnostic test.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biomarkers - blood</subject><subject>Body Weight</subject><subject>Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - blood</subject><subject>False Negative Reactions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gestational Age</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Maternal Serum Screening Tests - methods</subject><subject>Maternal Serum Screening Tests - standards</subject><subject>Maternal Serum Screening Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0029-7844</issn><issn>1873-233X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LxDAQhoMoun78A5EevVTz1SY5LuIXiIooeivZZOJGu60mqYv_3iyrIh40lzAzzzsDD0K7BB8QrMTh-Or0AP94VFC5gkZEClZSxh5W0Sg3VSkk5xtoM8anDJFasXW0QZVSVeZHCE60SX2IxTjG3nidwBb3Pk2L8871YaaTf4PiBmzQ82LsEoRCd3nmk9dtcdnnURzaVPguF53v3nRcBK4DdDpl4hZi8t3jNlpzuo2w8_lvobuT49ujs_Li6vT8aHxRGo6JLE1ljMCTCTFQ1xPKpXQOaqm5AmwrTq1wkmBQwlWc1NhaSwmjDLtacGGZY1tof7n3JfSvQ77dzHw00La6g36IDcW1VIQKJTPKl6gJfYwBXPMS_EyH94bgZiG4yYKb34JzbO_zwjCZgf0OfRnNgFwC877NuuJzO8whNFPQbZr-t5v_EV1gNa1wSbMqLHNVLoKEfQB6mpb-</recordid><startdate>201808</startdate><enddate>201808</enddate><creator>Benn, Peter</creator><creator>Valenti, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Shah, Shailen</creator><creator>Martin, Kimberly</creator><creator>Demko, Zachary</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><general>by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201808</creationdate><title>Factors Associated With Informative Redraw After an Initial No Result in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing</title><author>Benn, Peter ; Valenti, Elizabeth ; Shah, Shailen ; Martin, Kimberly ; Demko, Zachary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4018-c5cc70bb1ce66b2488ffe68a49e0d542d7f810e97f54160ddd213230f6747d3f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biomarkers - blood</topic><topic>Body Weight</topic><topic>Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - blood</topic><topic>False Negative Reactions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gestational Age</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Maternal Serum Screening Tests - methods</topic><topic>Maternal Serum Screening Tests - standards</topic><topic>Maternal Serum Screening Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Benn, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valenti, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Shailen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Kimberly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demko, Zachary</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Benn, Peter</au><au>Valenti, Elizabeth</au><au>Shah, Shailen</au><au>Martin, Kimberly</au><au>Demko, Zachary</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Factors Associated With Informative Redraw After an Initial No Result in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing</atitle><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2018-08</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>132</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>428</spage><epage>435</epage><pages>428-435</pages><issn>0029-7844</issn><eissn>1873-233X</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVE:Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) sometimes fails to provide a test result, usually as a result of low cell-free DNA fetal fraction. We investigated how initial fetal fraction, maternal weight, gestational age, and time between blood sampling contribute to obtaining an informative result when a redraw is performed. METHODS:We performed a retrospective data review of NIPT samples received between January and October 2016 by a commercial laboratory, where the initial blood draw did not yield a result and a second sample was drawn between 5 and 28 days after the initial sampling. We included cases with fetal fraction less than 2.8% (the threshold for “no result” in this laboratory) and those with higher fetal fraction but where the NIPT results could not be interpreted with high confidence. RESULTS:For 4,018 cases in which a redraw was recommended, a result was obtained for the second sample in 2,835 cases (70.6%) (95% CI 69.1–72.0%). For the 2,959 cases with insufficient fetal fraction, there was a result for the second sample in 1,861 cases (62.9%) (95% CI 61.1–64.6%). For this subset, the average increase in fetal fraction was 1.2% with an average interval between draws of 14 days. Informative redraw rate was strongly dependent on maternal weight and fetal fraction measured at the first draw. Gestational age was not an important determinant. Informative redraw rate increased rapidly over the first 8 days after the initial draw and more slowly thereafter. CONCLUSION:Based on fetal fraction in the initial sample, maternal weight, and interval between blood draws, women can be provided with a personalized estimate of their likelihood of a result on redraw. This should aid in the counseling of women faced with the choice of reattempting NIPT, conventional screening, or an invasive diagnostic test.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>29995728</pmid><doi>10.1097/AOG.0000000000002728</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0029-7844
ispartof Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 2018-08, Vol.132 (2), p.428-435
issn 0029-7844
1873-233X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2068912798
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Biomarkers - blood
Body Weight
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - blood
False Negative Reactions
Female
Gestational Age
Humans
Logistic Models
Maternal Serum Screening Tests - methods
Maternal Serum Screening Tests - standards
Maternal Serum Screening Tests - statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Pregnancy
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Sensitivity and Specificity
Young Adult
title Factors Associated With Informative Redraw After an Initial No Result in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T19%3A20%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Factors%20Associated%20With%20Informative%20Redraw%20After%20an%20Initial%20No%20Result%20in%20Noninvasive%20Prenatal%20Testing&rft.jtitle=Obstetrics%20and%20gynecology%20(New%20York.%201953)&rft.au=Benn,%20Peter&rft.date=2018-08&rft.volume=132&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=428&rft.epage=435&rft.pages=428-435&rft.issn=0029-7844&rft.eissn=1873-233X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002728&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2068912798%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2068912798&rft_id=info:pmid/29995728&rfr_iscdi=true