The Pregnancy Lab

Should DNA-based tests for Down syndrome screening replace biochemical tests?

In a previous post I described the clinical performance of DNA-based screening tests for fetal aneuploidies like Down syndrome.  Overall, these tests have excellent detection rates (~99%) with very low false-positive rates (~0.2%).  In other words, these tests are about 99.0% sensitive and 99.8% specific.

With performance like that one might expect these to be considered diagnostic tests.  They are not! Although quite good, test results must not be interpreted as definitive evidence that a fetus does or does not have an aneuploidy.  Recent recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) are quite clear on that issue.

In those same recommendations, ACOG also states that DNA-based screening tests may be performed only on women who are at increased risk of having a fetus with aneuloidy.  Among the indications listed for women considered to be at increase risk are:

• Maternal age 35 years or older at delivery
• Fetal ultrasound findings suggesting aneuploidy
• A previous aneuploid pregnancy
• Abnormal biochemical screening test results

The ACOG is right to avoid recommending that DNA-based screening tests are acceptable to use regardless of risk factors.  Unfortunately, many women who are not at increased risk are using these new tests as a primary screening test and that's not a good idea.

To understand why, considered a population of 100,000 pregnant women from the general population and assume that the prevalence of Down syndrome is 1 in 500 pregnancies.  That means that there would be 99,800 unaffected pregnancies and 200 pregnancies with Down syndrome.  The table below compares the results of the most commonly used biochemical screening test (the Quad test) to a DNA-based screening test.

Clearly, the DNA-based test has several advantages over the Quad test.  Its positive predictive value is nearly 17 times greater than the Quad's and a positive DNA-based test result substantially increases the odds of having an affected fetus.  So why not use the DNA-based test as a primary screening test?  For the following reasons:

• No studies have been published that have evaluated the performance of DNA-based tests in women who are not at increased risk of having a fetus with an aneuploidy
• DNA-based tests are not widely available
• The time it takes to report results of DNA-based testing is about 3 times greater than it is with biochemical testing
• DNA-based tests are considerably more expensive than biochemical tests
• Relative lack of insurance coverage for DNA-based tests

Until these these limitations can be resolved, it makes more sense to use DNA-based testing as a secondary screening test.  In other words, it is only done after one of the risk factors described by ACOG (above) are met.  Doing so greatly improves the performance of both tests (see figure below).  A limitation of this approach is that the detection rate is that of the biochemical test which is not as high as it is with the DNA-based test.  Still, given the current limitations of DNA-based testing, this 2-step testing approach makes the most sense.

DNA-based tests for Down syndrome screening show excellent clinical performance

The use of biochemical screening tests to identify pregnant women who are at high risk of having a fetus with Down syndrome is well established.  Biochemical screening began nearly 30 years ago and, over the years, the tests have evolved and improved.  Now there’s a new kid on the screening test block and it’s name is DNA.

The discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma in 1997 opened up new possibilities for Down syndrome and other aneuploidy screening protocols.  Rather than rely on biochemical testing to determine a biochemical phenotype, DNA-based tests have been developed that can detect the molecular pathology of aneuploidies (e.g. a fetus that has more than the expected 2 copies of chromosomes 21, 18, or 13; the cause of Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, and Patau syndrome, respectively).

We’ve written about DNA-based screening tests before (here and here) and described the clinical performance of the Sequenom test.  Now, other clinical performance studies have been published for 3 of the 4 tests that are (or will be) commercially available.  As expected, all of them show excellent clinical performance.  As shown in the table below, the detection rates for trisomy 21 are greater than or equal to 99% with very low false-positive results.  Similar performance has been reported for trisomy 18 and 13.

Table References: Genet Med 2011;13:913-920; Genet Med 2012;14:296-305; Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:890-901

By comparison, the detection rate of the best biochemical Down syndrome screening test (the Integrated test) is very good at 93%.  However, about 5% of all Integrated test results are false-positive.  A 5% false-positive rate may not seem very high but it is.  For example, consider a population of 100,000 pregnant women who choose Integrated testing in the second trimester.  The prevalence of Down syndrome in the second trimester is about 1 in 500 pregnancies so 200 of those 100,000 women will have a fetus with Down syndrome and 99,800 women (100,000 – 200) will have unaffected fetuses.  Of those 99,800 women with unaffected fetuses, 4,900 will have a false-positive Integrated test result.

Because the false-positive rate of the DNA-based tests is so low (about <0.2%), then if those same 100,000 women were screened there would be only 200 false-positive results, a 96% decrease!

Does this mean that DNA-based tests should replace biochemical screening tests?  Probably not but I’ll leave the explanation as to why for my next post.

Molecular testing for Down syndrome: proceed with caution

Ann recently posted about massively parallel genomic sequencing using maternal blood as a
screening test for Down syndrome.  In it, she described a recently published, multi-center clinical study that validated this molecular test in just over 1,600 women.  The test detected 98.6% of the Down syndrome fetuses and had a false-positive rate of 0.2%.  Notably, this performance is considerably better than current biochemical marker Down syndrome screening tests.

However, there are some important limitations to this new test.

1. It’s expensive and available from only one company.  The Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, located in Grand Rapids, MI, developed the test and is currently the only place in the US that can do it.  It's marketed as the MaterniT21 test and costs $1,900 for the uninsured and ~$235 for those with insurance.  Biochemical screening tests cost much less.
2. After the blood sample arrives in the lab, test results are available in about 10 days.  Results for biochemical screening tests take about 1 day.
3. The test can only be performed in singleton pregnancies (not twins, triplets, etc).  Biochemical screening tests work best in singleton pregnancies, too, although risks can be estimated from a twin pregnancy.
4. The test fails to work in about 2% of cases, usually as a result of there not being enough fetal DNA detected in the mother's blood.  This is more likely to be the case in overweight women who have a higher blood volume which dilutes the amount of the fetal DNA.  The concentrations of the markers used in biochemical screening tests are also effected by maternal weight but there are effective ways to account for that so that the final result is not affected.
5. The test is only validated for the detection of Down syndrome and not other fetal aneuploidies such as trisomy 18 or trisomy 13.  The test does have the capability of detecting these disorders and, if they are detected, will be reported.  However, because the test has not been thoroughly investigated for detecting T18 or T13 a negative result doesn't rule out their presence.  Biochemical screening tests can detect these disorders although the detection rates are lower than they are for Down syndrome.
6. The test does not detect open neural tube defects (e.g. spinal bifida) that are usually screened for using biochemical screening tests.

I have no doubt that as the technology required to do massively parallel genomic sequencing becomes less expensive, tests like the MaterniT21 will become more affordable and mainstream.  Most of the limitations I described above will also be addressed with time and technological improvements.  As Ann indicated, this is the dawn of a new era in screening for fetal disorders.

Choosing a screening test for Down syndrome

Last month I wrote about the many different tests used for Down syndrome screening.  Today, there are 6 different screening tests that a woman can choose from should she opt for any testing at all.  Selecting one can't be an easy task for most women and, given the relatively short time that most physicians have to spend with patients today, many simply follow their doctor's advice and don't truly understand their options.

The choice of which Down syndrome screening test to have depends on the answers to a few questions:

• When during pregnancy does the patient first seek obstetrical care for her pregnancy?

Some screening tests are performed in the first or the second trimester while other tests are performed in both first and second trimesters.  If a woman first seeks obstetrical care after the 14th week of pregnancy then only the second trimester tests can be offered.  That means either the Triple or the Quad tests.  If she presents earlier then all screening tests can be considered.

• Are nuchal translucency testing and chorionic villus sampling readily available?

Nuchal translucency (NT) is an ultrasound measurement of space under the skin behind the fetal neck and is performed only during the first trimester.  An increased NT is strongly associated with Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities.  It's a component of the Combined test, the Integrated test, and the Sequential test.

Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is the removal of a small piece of placental tissue in order to obtain fetal cells in order to obtain the fetal karyotype.  The karyotype will identify the number of chromosomes the fetus has inherited and is usually only performed after an abnormal Down syndrome screening test.  This procedure is performed in the first trimester because amniocentesis can't be performed this early in pregnancy.

If CVS is not available then options include the Integrated, the Triple, or the Quad test.  If the NT is not available then the choice of screening tests is limited to the Serum Integrated test, the Triple test, or the Quad test (the same is true if both NT and CVS are not available).

• When does the mother want the results of the screening test?

If the woman wants the earliest assessment of the risk of carrying a fetus with Down syndrome then she should opt for the Combined test.  The test is performed only in the first trimester and results are available sooner than with any of the other test options.  However, the test doesn't perform as well as some of the other tests.  On average, the Combined test detects about 85% of all Down syndrome fetuses at a 5% false-positive rate.

If she's willing to wait until the second trimester for the test results then the best screening test is the Integrated test.  This test gives the highest Down syndrome detection rate (about 95%).  The test can also be performed without an NT (the Serum Integrated test) and will provide the same detection rate with a slightly higher false-positive rate.

If the patient desires early risk assessment but is willing to wait for test results if needed, then the Sequential test may be appropriate.  The Sequential test reports results in the first trimester only if the risk of having a Down syndrome fetus is very high.  If the risk is not high, then results are not reported until the second trimester test is completed.

The table below summarizes the performance of the 6 different Down syndrome screening tests.  The "detection rate" (DR) is the percentage of Down syndrome pregnancies that are correctly identified by the test and the "false positive rate" (FP) is the percentage of unaffected pregnancies identified as abnormal.

Selecting a test for Down syndrome screening doesn't have to be complicated.  Patient's should be informed about the pros and cons of each test (and screening tests in general).  It's often said that information is power and, when it comes to Down syndrome screening, women should be empowered to choose the test that is right for them.