Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) demonstrated a small chance for a false negative result. Since the “fetal” DNA in maternal blood originates from the cytotrophoblast of chorionic villi (CV), some false negative results will have a biological origin. Based on our experience with cytogenetic studies of CV, we tried to estimate this risk. 5967 CV samples of pregnancies at high risk for common aneuplodies were cytogenetically investigated in our centre between January 2000 and December 2011. All cases of fetal trisomy 13, 18 and 21 were retrospectively studied for the presence of a normal karyotype or mosaicism < 30% in short-term cultured (STC-) villi. 404 cases of trisomies 13, 18 and 21 were found amongst 5967 samples (6,8%). Of these 404 cases, 14 (3,7%) had a normal or low mosaic karyotype in STC-villi and therefore would potentially be missed with NIPT. It involved 2% (5/242) of all trisomy 21 cases and 7.3% (9/123) of all trisomy 18 cases. In 1:426 (14/5967) NIPT samples of patients at high risk for common aneuploidies, a trisomy 18 or 21 will potentially be missed due to the biological phenomenon of absence of the chromosome aberration in the cytotrophoblast.

ObjectiveNon‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) detects placental chromosome aberrations. When amniocentesis reveals a normal karyotype, confined placental mosaicism (CPM) may be assumed. In order to confirm this, placental cytogenetic studies were performed.MethodNIPT was conducted in the course of the Dutch TRIDENT study. Placentas of 10 cases with NIPT results indicating an autosomal trisomy and showing a normal (N = 9) or low mosaic karyotype (N = 1) in amniotic fluid (AF) were investigated. The cytotrophoblast as well as the mesenchymal core of two to four placental chorionic villi biopsies were studied with single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Clinical outcome data were collected.ResultsIn 10/10 cases, CPM was proven. In 3/10 cases trisomy/uniparental disomy (UPD)/biparental disomy (BPD) mosaicism was discovered. In 2/3 cases, all three cell lines were present in the placenta, whereas BPD was found in AF. In 1/3 cases trisomy 22/UPD22 was present in AF while trisomy 22/BPD22 mosaicism was found in the placenta. Five of 10 pregnancies were affected with pre‐eclampsia, low birth weight, preterm delivery, and/or congenital malformations.ConclusionThe presence of trisomy/UPD/BPD mosaicism in 3/10 cases that we investigated proves that trisomic zygote rescue may involve multiple rescue events during early embryogenesis. UPD mosaicism, when present in crucial fetal tissues, may explain the abnormal phenotype in undiagnosed cases.

ObjectivePlacental cytogenetic studies may reveal the origin of discordant noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). We performed placental studies to elucidate discordances between NIPT showing a structural chromosome aberration and the fetus having a different chromosome aberration in three cases.MethodDiagnostic testing with genomic SNP microarray was performed in three cases with NIPT showing a duplication on 4q (case 1), a terminal deletion of 13q (case 2), and a terminal deletion of 15q (case 3). Placental studies involved SNP array analysis of cytotrophoblast and mesenchymal core of chorionic villi of four placental quadrants. Clinical follow‐up was performed as well.ResultsAmniotic fluid revealed a different structural chromosome aberration than predicted by NIPT: a terminal 2q deletion (case 1), a segmental uniparental isodisomy of 13q (case 2), and a terminal duplication of 15q and of 13q (case 3). Placental studies revealed the aberration detected with NIPT in the cytotrophoblast, whereas the fetal karyotype was confirmed in the placental mesenchymal core.ConclusionOur study shows that targeted cytogenetic investigations for confirmation of NIPT showing a microscopically visible structural chromosome aberration should be avoided, since another aberration, even a submicroscopic one or one involving another chromosome, may be present in the fetus.