Purpose: Genome sequencing (GS) is potentially the most suitable diagnostic tools for fetal CNS structural anomalies. However, its efficacy hasn't been proved in large cohort of fetal CNS structural anomalies. Methods: Patients were enrolled by a multiple-level referral system when fetal CNS structure anomalies were found by ultrasonography. Samples from fetuses were subjected to GS. Results: Data of 162 fetuses with 11 frequent types of CNS anomalies was collected. The overall diagnosis yield of GS was 38.9%. 36(20.3%) fetuses were detected with chromosomal anomalies and pathogenic CNVs. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic single-gene variants and intragenic CNVs were found in 24 and three fetuses, contributing 14.8% and 1.9% diagnostic yield respectively. The diagnostic rate in 41 fetuses with CNS malformation combined with anomalies out of brain was as high as 73.3%. Malformations of the posterior cerebral fossa, abnormal neuronal proliferation and migration have the highest diagnostic rates. NTDs had the second lowest diagnostic rates of 14.7% and none pathogenic variants were found in ultrasound anomalies that suggested destructive cerebral lesions. Conclusion: GS is an efficient genetic testing tool with the diagnostic power compared to current CMA plus ES procedure in fetal CNS anomalies evaluation.

Although non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is widely used to detect fetal abnormalities, the results of NIPT vary by population, and data for the screening efficiency of NIPT positive predictive value (PPV) from different populations is limited. Herein, we retrospectively analyzed the NIPT results in a large multicenter study involving 52,855 pregnant women. Depending on gestational age, amniotic fluid or umbilical cord blood was extracted for karyotype and/or chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) in NIPT-positive patients, and the PPV and follow-up data were evaluated to determine its clinical value. Among the 52,855 cases, 754 were NIPT-positive, with a positivity rate of 1.4%. Karyotype analysis and/or CMA confirmed 323 chromosomal abnormalities, with a PPV of 45.1%. PPV for trisomy 21 (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosomal aneuploidies (SCAs), and copy number variations (CNVs) were 78.9, 35.3, 22.2, 36.9, and 32.9%, respectively. The PPVs for T21, T18, and T13 increased with age, whereas the PPVs for SCAs and CNVs had little correlation with age. The PPV was significantly higher in patients with advanced age and abnormal ultrasound. The NIPT results are affected by population characteristics. NIPT had a high PPV for T21 and a low PPV for T13 and T18, and screening for SCAs and CNVs showed clinical significance in southern China.

Background Determining the reasons for unreportable or no-call cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test results has been an ongoing issue, and a consensus on subsequent management is still lacking. This study aimed to explore potential factors related to no-call cfDNA test results and to discuss whether retest results are reliable. Methods and results This was a retrospective study of women with singleton pregnancies undergoing cfDNA testing in 2021. Of the 9871 pregnant patients undergoing cfDNA testing, 111 had a no-call result, and their results were compared to those of 170 control patients. The no-call rate was 1.12% (111/9871), and the primary cause for no-call results was data fluctuation (88.29%, 98/111). Medical conditions were significantly more frequent in the no-call group than in the reportable results group (P < 0.001). After retesting, 107 (107/111, 96.40%) patients had a result, and the false-positive rate (FPR) of retesting was 10.09% (10.09%, 11/109). In addition, placental lesions were more frequent in the no-call group than in the reportable results group (P = 0.037), and 4 patients, all in the no-call group, experienced pregnancy loss. Conclusions Pregnant women with medical conditions are more likely to have a no-call result. A retest is suggested for patients with a no-call result, but retests have a high FPR. In addition, pregnant women with a no-call result are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In conclusion, more attention should be given to pregnant women for whom a no-call cfDNA result is obtained.