切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华产科急救电子杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (03) : 169 -173. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3259.2021.03.010

论著

无创基因检测筛查胎儿染色体异常的效果及其与孕妇年龄和检测孕周相关性的探讨
孟骁1, 钟世林2, 邓玉清1,()   
  1. 1. 518036 深圳,安徽医科大学北京大学深圳医院临床学院
    2. 北京大学深圳医院妇产科
  • 收稿日期:2020-12-22 出版日期:2021-08-18
  • 通信作者: 邓玉清

The effect of non-invasive prenatal testing in screening fetal chromosomal abnormalities and its correlation with gestational age and maternal age.

Xiao Meng1, Shiling Zhong2, Yuqing Deng1,()   

  1. 1. Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen 518036, China
  • Received:2020-12-22 Published:2021-08-18
  • Corresponding author: Yuqing Deng
引用本文:

孟骁, 钟世林, 邓玉清. 无创基因检测筛查胎儿染色体异常的效果及其与孕妇年龄和检测孕周相关性的探讨[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2021, 10(03): 169-173.

Xiao Meng, Shiling Zhong, Yuqing Deng. The effect of non-invasive prenatal testing in screening fetal chromosomal abnormalities and its correlation with gestational age and maternal age.[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2021, 10(03): 169-173.

目的

分析我院无创基因检测对胎儿常见染色体非整倍体异常的检测效果,探讨不同检测孕周、孕妇年龄与检测效果指标的相关性。

方法

选择自2013年6月至2019年4月在北京大学深圳医院行无创产前基因检测(non-invasive prenatal DNA testing, NIPT)的孕妇,对检测结果高风险者进行羊水染色体核型分析,对检测低风险者行电话随访,以核型分析和随访结果判断胎儿是否异常,分析NIPT的检测效果指标。按孕妇年龄分为<30岁、30~34岁、35~39岁和≥40岁4个各组,按检测孕周分为≤13+6、14~22+6周、23~27+6周和≥28周4个组,探讨灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、假阳性率等指标与孕妇年龄及检测孕周的相关性。

结果

(1)共43 918例行NIPT孕妇纳入统计,NIPT总体的灵敏度100.00%,特异度99.76%,假阳性率0.24%;(2)NIPT对第21、18、13及性染色体异常的灵敏度、特异度均在99%以上,假阳性率低于0.5%;(3)年龄分组中35~39岁组与30~34岁组的特异度(99.67% vs 99.81%)相比,差异有统计学意义( χ2=4.099,P=0.043),其余筛查指标差异均没有统计学意义。孕周分组数据筛选指标比较,差异均没有统计学意义(P>0.05);(4)假阳性病例中发现2例新生儿患有先天性心脏病,1例新生儿双肾盂轻度分离,1例多发畸形等非染色体畸形异常。

结论

NIPT对常见染色体非整倍体异常具有较高的准确性及特异性,较低的假阳性率,特别是21-三体。NIPT对于不同年龄、不同孕周的孕妇检测效果差异不大。对于NIPT结果阳性病例,需警惕胎儿非染色体畸形等异常的发生。

Objective

To analyze the detection effect of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on detecting fetal common chromosome aneuploidy abnormalities in Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, and to explore the correlation between different gestational weeks, maternal age and detection effect indicators.

Methods

Pregnant women who underwent NIPT and were with high risk result in Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from June 2013 to April 2019, were selected to analyze amniotic fluid chromosome karyotype, and others with low risk were followed-up by telephone. Basing on the chromosome karyotype results and follow-up results, the fetus was diagnosed and analyzed the NIPT detection effect index. According to the maternal age, they were divided into 4 groups: < 30 years old group, 30~34 years old group, 35~39 years old group, ≥ 40 years old group. According to the gestational age, they were divided into 4 groups: ≤13+ 6 weeks group, 14-22+ 6 weeks group, 23-27+ 6 weeks group, ≥ 28 weeks group. The correlation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and false positive rate with maternal age and gestational age were analyzed.

Results

(1) A total of 43, 918 pregnant women with NIPT were included in the statistics. The overall sensitivity of NIPT was 100.00%, the specificity was 99.76% and the false positive rate was 0.24%.(2) The sensitivity and specificity of NIPT to T21, T18, T13, and sex chromosome abnormalities were all over 99% and the false positive rate was less than 0.5%. (3) In the advanced age group, there was a statistically significant difference in the specificity between the 35~39-year-old group and the 30~34-year-old group (P<0.05), and the differences in other screening indicators were not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in the screening index comparison of grouped data during gestational week (P<0.05). (4) Among the false positive cases, it was found that 2 cases of newborns had congenital heart disease, 1 case with slight separation of double renal pelvis and 1 case with multiple abnormalities and other non-chromosomal abnormalities.

Conclusions

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) had high accuracy and specificity for common chromosome aneuploidy abnormalities, and low false positive rate, especially for trisomy 21. There is no significant difference in the detection effect of NIPT for pregnant women in different ages and different gestational weeks. For the cases with positive NIPT results, it was necessary to guard against the occurrence of fetal non-chromosome abnormalities and other abnormalities.

表1 43 918例患者NIPT结果与染色体核型分析及随访结果
表2 43 872例不同年龄段患者的NIPT检测指标对比
表3 43 872例不同孕周患者的NIPT检测指标对比
[1]
Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum [J].Lancet, 1997, 350(9076): 485-487.
[2]
Biró O, Rigó J Jr, Nagy B. Noninvasive prenatal testing for congenital heart disease-cell-free nucleic acid and protein biomarkers in maternal blood [J].J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2020, 33(6): 1044-1050.
[3]
Pös O, Biró O, Szemes T, et al. Circulating cell-free nucleic acids: characteristics and applications [J]. Eur J Hum Genet, 2018, 26(7): 937-945.
[4]
Pös O, Budis J, Kubiritova Z, et al. Identification of structural variation from NGS-based non-invasive prenatal testing [J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2019, 20(18): 1-9.
[5]
Mackie FL, Hemming K, Allen S, et al. The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis [J]. BJOG, 2017, 124(1): 32-46.
[6]
Pös O, Budiš J, Szemes T. Recent trends in prenatal genetic screening and testing [J]. F1000Res, 2019, 8(F1000 Faculty Rev): 1-10.
[7]
Wang Y, Li S, Wang W, et al. Cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome aneuploidies by non-invasive prenatal testing in maternal plasma [J]. Mol Cytogenet,2020,13(10): 1-8.
[8]
王路明,周赤燕,胡月,等. 12085例无创产前基因检测在胎儿染色体异常筛查中的临床应用[J]. 中华医学遗传学杂志,2020,37(10): 1069-1073.
[9]
杨勉,宋丰杰,姚岚. 无创产前基因检测在产前筛查和诊断中的应用效果观察[J].当代医学,2020,26(5): 122-124.
[10]
Zheng Y, Wan S, Dang Y, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of trisomy 13, 18, 21 and sex chromosome aneuploidies in 8594 cases [J]. Ginekol Pol, 2019, 90(5): 270-273.
[11]
Bu J, Jiang P, Cui X, et al. Application values of prenatal screening and non-invasive gene sequencing in fetal birth defects [J]. Pak J Med Sci, 2020, 36(7): 1545-1549.
[12]
郑芸芸,万陕宁,宋婷婷,等. 8594例孕妇无创DNA产前检测在胎儿染色体非整倍体疾病筛查中的临床应用[J]. 实用妇产科杂志,2019, 35(01): 68-71.
[13]
Faas BH, de Ligt J, Janssen I, et al. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies using massively parallel sequencing-by-ligation and evidence that cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal plasma originates from cytotrophoblastic cells [J]. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2012, 12 Suppl 1: S19-26.
[14]
Wegrzyn P, Faro C, Falcon O, et al. Placental volume measured by three-dimensional ultrasound at 11 to 13+6 weeks of gestation: relation to chromosomal defects [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 26(1): 28-32.
[15]
葛婷婷,孙庆梅,吴菊,等. 12807例孕早期唐氏筛查的临床应用现状分析[J]. 中国优生与遗传杂志,2018, 26(06): 27, 54-55.
[16]
Yu D, Zhang K, Han M, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal subchromosomal copy number variations and chromosomal aneuploidy by low-pass whole-genome sequencing [J]. Mol Genet Genomic Med, 2019, 7(6): 1-11.
[17]
Chen Y, Yu Q, Mao X, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing for chromosome aneuploidies and subchromosomal microdeletions/microduplications in a cohort of 42,910 single pregnancies with different clinical features [J]. Hum Genomics, 2019, 13(1): 1-8.
[18]
罗丽双,孟繁杰,郝冬梅,等. 4204例高龄孕妇的无创产前基因检测结果分析[J].生殖医学杂志,2020, 29(4): 532-535.
[19]
叶燕绸,章钧. 应用孕妇血浆胎儿游离DNA进行无创产前检测的研究[J/CD].中华产科急救电子杂志,2017,6(04): 223-227.
[20]
彭司琪,郭雅兰,李燕,等. 母体血浆胎儿游离DNA Rh D基因型产前诊断检测[J].实用预防医学,2018, 25(7): 880-883.
[21]
程芳,马冬,范扶民,等. 正常孕妇血浆中cffDNA含量变化的研究[J].中国妇幼保健,2014, 29(20): 3333-3335.
[1] 徐燕, 茹彤, 郑明明, 顾燕, 朱湘玉, 严陈晨, 陈玲, 戴晨燕. Miller-Dieker综合征胎儿产前超声、磁共振影像学特征及遗传学分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(03): 281-287.
[2] 王德辉, 邓学东. 胎儿室间隔完整型肺动脉闭锁的超声心动图评估及预后分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(12): 1266-1270.
[3] 杨水华, 何桂丹, 覃桂灿, 梁蒙凤, 罗艳合, 李雪芹, 唐娟松. 胎儿孤立性完全型肺静脉异位引流的超声心动图特征及高分辨率血流联合时间-空间相关成像的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(10): 1061-1067.
[4] . 美国临床肿瘤学会关于乳腺癌胚系基因检测的相关建议[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 255-255.
[5] 王莉, 曹蕾, 王亚丹, 张伟. Krabbe病1例临床分析并文献复习[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(03): 339-345.
[6] 林昌盛, 战军, 肖雪. 上皮性卵巢癌患者诊疗中基因检测及分子靶向药物治疗[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 505-510.
[7] 薛超, 张烨, 赵映, 韩建成, 谷孝艳, 孙琳, 刘晓伟, 宋伟, 何怡华. 胎儿先天性肺动脉瓣缺如综合征的超声特征及预后分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(04): 410-418.
[8] 张雯, 张彦春, 刘凯波, 徐宏燕. 北京市胎儿先天性脑积水的产前MRI诊断及围产期转归[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 345-349.
[9] 娄丽丽, 刘瀚旻. 儿童哮喘易感基因及表观遗传学研究现状[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 249-255.
[10] 樊丽超, 郭瑾瑛, 陈鑫. 野生型RET与RET/PTC融合基因检测对甲状腺乳头状癌中央区淋巴结清扫的指导意义[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 631-635.
[11] 李腾成, 狄金明. 2023 V1版前列腺癌NCCN指南更新要点解读[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 313-318.
[12] 高英杰, 王阳, 王丽红, 毕文静, 刘卫民. VWF基因突变导致混合痔术后大出血一例报告并文献复习[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 496-498.
[13] 李任远, 梁桂宁, 于馨洋, 张莹. 基因检测及胚胎植入前单基因遗传学检测在优生优育中的作用[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 117-120.
[14] 张丹, 颜新生, 张李涛, 张真路, 王栋. 利用质量工具减少地中海贫血基因检测复查率[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 79-83.
[15] 谌燕, 冯宗辉, 姜淑敏, 李敏, 易凤梅, 谭颖. 结节性硬化症一家系的TSC2基因变异分析和产前诊断[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2024, 12(02): 112-115.
阅读次数
全文


摘要