日照地区1068例无创性产前胎儿染色体非整倍体检测结果分析
Analysis of 1068 Pregnant Women Undergoing Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Chromosome Aneuploidy in Rizhao Area
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2021.118541, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 287  浏览: 2,869 
作者: 解 萍:青岛大学附属青岛市妇女儿童医院,山东 青岛;日照市妇幼保健院,山东 日照;孙 越*:青岛大学附属青岛市妇女儿童医院,山东 青岛
关键词: 产前筛查非侵入性非整倍体唐氏综合征Prenatal Screening Non-Invasive Aneuploid Down Syndrome
摘要: 目的:评价无创产前筛查检测(non-invasive prenatal testing, NIPT)对35岁以下的孕妇进行胎儿染色体非整倍体筛查的临床价值。方法:收集2017年1月至2021年1月期间在山东日照地区产检、年龄 < 35岁,且完成了孕中期产前血清生化三联筛查(PTC)、NIPT的孕妇临床资料,共计1068例。对PTC和NIPT结果均显示高风险的孕妇进行胎儿染色体核型分析,并以核型分析结果为金标准,比较NIPT与PTC在胎儿染色体非整倍体疾病筛查的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测率、阴性预测率。结果:1068名孕妇经血清生化三联筛查检出胎儿染色体三体高风险212例(19.85%),其中T21高风险162例(15.17%),T18高风险39例(3.65%),AFP单项MoM值异常12例(1.12%)。NIPT检出高风险36例(3.37%)。PTC及NIPT检出为高风险的孕妇行羊水穿刺术胎儿染色体核型分析,显示T21为28例,T18为6例,T13为1例。PTC检测染色体非整倍体的总体灵敏度和特异度分别是100%,82.87%,阳性预测率和阴性预测率分别为16.51%,100%。NIPT检测染色体非整倍体的总体灵敏度和特异度分别是100%,99.90%,阳性预测率和阴性预测率分别为97.22%,100%。PTC检测T21的特异度为87.12%,而NIPT检测T21的特异度为99.90%。结论:NIPT应用于 < 35岁普通孕妇的胎儿染色体非整倍体筛查具有风险低、高灵敏度、高特异度的优势,值得临床推广应用。
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the clinical value of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal chromosome aneuploidy screening in pregnant women under 35 years old. Methods: A total of 1068 cases of pregnant women with prenatal serum biochemical triple screening (PTC) and NIPT were collected from January 2017 to January 2021 in the Rizhao region of Shandong Province, age < 35 years old. The karyotype analysis was carried out as the gold standard on pregnant women, whose results of PTC and NIPT showed high-risks. Compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive prediction rate and negative prediction of NIPT and PTC screening for fetal chromosome aneuploidy. Results: 212 cases (19.85%) with a high risk of chromosome trisomy were detected in 1068 pregnant women by PTC, including 162 cases (15.17%) with high risk of T21, 39 cases (3.65%) with high risk of T18, and abnormal AFP single MoM value 12 cases (1.12%). NIPT detected 36 high-risk cases (3.37%). Karyotype analysis of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis in high-risk cases detected by PTC or NIPT showed that T21 was in 28 cases, T18 was in 6 cases, and T13 was in 1 case. The overall sensitivity and specificity of PTC for detecting chromosomal aneuploidy are 100% and 82.87%, respectively, and the positive prediction rate and negative prediction rate are 16.51% and 100%, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of NIPT for detecting chromosomal aneuploidy are 100% and 99.90%, respectively, and the positive prediction rate and negative prediction rate are 97.22% and 100%, respectively. The specificity of T21 detected by PTC is 87.12%, and the specificity of T21 detected by NIPT is 99.90%. Conclusion: NIPT technology is used to screen fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in ordinary pregnant women younger than 35 years old. NIPT has low risk, high sensitivity, high specificity and is worthy of clinical application.
文章引用:解萍, 孙越. 日照地区1068例无创性产前胎儿染色体非整倍体检测结果分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2021, 11(8): 3691-3696. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2021.118541

1. 引言

近年来非侵入性无创产前检测(Non-invasive Prenatal Testing, NIPT)通过高通量测序(Next Generation Sequencing, NGS)检测孕妇外周血中循环的胎儿游离DNA (cell-free fetal DNA, Cff DNA),开创了产前筛查的新时代。传统的侵入性产前胎儿染色体检查方法如羊膜腔穿刺术、脐血穿刺术和绒毛穿刺取样(Chorionic Villus Biopsy, CVB)有一定的流产风险。而NIPT在妊娠早期10周时就能检测孕妇外周血中的游离胎儿DNA,且不需要进行侵入性的取样,可以避免因检测带来的流产风险 [1]。多项临床验证结果证明NIPT具有高灵敏度和特异性 [2] [3] [4]。NIPT得到众多权威机构的推荐,支持在高危妊娠非整倍体检测标准范围内采用NIPT,如美国妇产科大会(ACOG)、美国母胎医学协会(SMFM)、国际产前诊断学会(ISPD) [5]、中国国家卫生计生委 [6] 等。目前关于NIPT的研究报道大多集中在高危和高龄孕妇(≥35岁)中的应用结果 [7] [8]。本研究试图通过回顾分析NIPT技术检测年龄 < 35岁孕妇的临床资料,探讨NIPT对胎儿染色体非整倍体异常疾病筛查的临床价值。

2. 临床资料

对象

本研究纳入了2017年1月至2021年1月到我院进行产检的1068例 < 35岁孕妇的临床资料。纳入标准:① NIPT取样时间为孕周12+0~22+6周;② 孕妇进行孕中期血清生化三联筛查;③ 同意接受侵入性检查;④ 有完整的产检记录。排除标准:① 有基因遗传病家族史;② 孕期合并恶性肿瘤;③ 医师认为有明显影响结果准确性的其他情形。该研究得到日照市妇幼保健院伦理委员会的批准,所有参与者在决定接受或拒绝任何测试时都获得了知情书面同意。

3. 方法

3.1. 产前血清生化三联筛查

采集孕妇外周血3 ml后离心分离血清于−20℃冰箱储存备检。应用美国PerkinElmer公司生产的Auto DELFIA 1235型时间分辨荧光免疫分析仪及甲胎蛋白/游离人绒毛膜促性腺激素(AFP/free-β-HCG)试剂盒和游离雌三醇(µE3)试剂盒测量AFP、free-β-HCG、µE3的生化值。T21筛查阳性的截断值设置为1/270;T18筛查阳性的截断值设置为1/350;NTD以AFP单项中位数倍数(MoM)值 ≥ 2.5为截断值。

3.2. NIPT

采集孕12~22周孕妇外周血5 ml,置于乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)试管中。采血后72小时内于4℃ 1600 × g离心10分钟分离血浆。血细胞部分再以2500 × g离心10分钟,血浆部分以16,000 × g离心10分钟,血细胞部分和血浆样品立即置入−80℃冰箱储存备用 [9]。根据制造商的说明,使用游离DNA提取纯化试剂盒(华大生物科技有限公司)提取样本中的胎儿游离DNA。采用美国Thermo Fisher公司生产的Qubit Q33327型荧光计测定DNA浓度。采用胎儿染色体非整倍体(T13, T18, T21)检测试剂盒(华大生物科技有限公司)进行检测。在将结果最终报告给临床医师之前,所有样品报告都已经经过实验室主任审核。胎儿DNA不足的样本按照文献描述的方法归类为数量不足 [10]。最后通过生物信息学分析,计算出各条染色体对应覆盖深度值,得出胎儿患染色体非整倍体疾病的风险。

3.3. 胎儿染色体核型分析

行孕妇羊膜腔穿刺术,于无菌操作下抽取羊水后按标准操作程序进行胎儿染色体G带核型分析。染色体描述和命名基于国际人类细胞遗传学命名体系 [11]。

4. 结果

4.1. 研究对象的临床特征

共有1068名孕妇参加了这项研究。孕妇平均年龄为29.13 ± 3.51 (范围为22~34岁),胎儿平均胎龄为15.32 ± 2.18周(范围为12~22周)。孕妇体重指数(BMI)均值为21.37 kg/m2 (范围为16.27~52.78 kg/m2)。

4.2. 产前筛查结果

1068名孕妇经产前血清生化三联筛查检出染色体三体高风险212例(212/1068, 19.85%),其中T21高风险162例(162/1068, 15.17%),T18高风险39例(39/1068, 3.65%),AFP单项MoM值异常12例(12/1068, 1.12%)。NIPT检出高风险36例,NIPT检出高风险而血清生化三联筛查低风险0例。对该212例高风险病例行羊水穿刺术胎儿染色体核型分析,显示共35例染色体异常,其中T21 28例,T18 6例,T13 1例,详见表1。一例胎儿染色体结果正常,但彩超提示胎儿多发畸形,孕妇综合超声检查、血清生化三联筛查、NIPT结果,选择了终止妊娠。其余35例胎儿染色体异常的孕妇均接受了临床医生建议选择终止妊娠。

Table 1. Results of karyotype analysis of the 35 fetuses

表1. 35例胎儿染色体核型分析结果

4.3. NIPT与产前血清生化三联筛查对胎儿染色体非整倍体诊断效能分析

以胎儿染色体核型分析结果为金标准,产前三联筛查检测染色体非整倍体的总体灵敏度和特异度分别是100%,82.87%,阳性预测率和阴性预测率分别为16.51%,100%。NIPT检测染色体非整倍体的总体灵敏度和特异度分别是100%,99.90%,阳性预测率和阴性预测率分别为97.22%,100%。产前三联筛查检测T21的特异度为87.12%,而NIPT检测T21的特异度为99.90%。详见表2

Table 2. Comparison of diagnostic efficacy of prenatal triple screening and NIPT on T21, T18 and T13

表2. 产前三联筛查和NIPT对T21、T18和T13的诊断效能比较

注:PPV为positive predictive value缩写,阳性预测值;NPV为negative predictive value缩写,阴性预测值。

5. 讨论

中国及大部分欧洲国家现已将孕妇的T21、T18的产前筛查列为常规产前筛查项目。目前我国常采用的方法是孕早期筛查和孕中期筛查。孕早期产前筛查是通过超声测量胎儿的颈部透明层(NT)结合母体血清学检测,并结合年龄、病史等情况进行评估 [12] [13]。孕中期进行产前三联筛查(AFP, free-β-HCG, µE3) [14]。传统的筛查方法有很大的局限性,容易导致漏诊,并且染色体核型分析需要进行侵入性检测,会发生流产等不良事件。文献记载 [15] [16] 常规孕早期筛查方案的灵敏度在70%~90%之间,假阳性率(false-positive rate, FPR)为5%。无创产前检测(NIPT)是产前和胎儿领域的里程碑。1997年在母血中发现胎儿游离DNA片段 [17],2011年NIPT应用于临床 [18]。使用无细胞DNA (cff DNA)检测胎儿非整倍体的NIPT已广泛整合到常规产前检测中。NIPT是一种针对T21、T18、T13的高灵敏度和特异性产前筛查检测。目前在许多医疗机构中广泛应用NIPT对高危孕妇进行常规胎儿染色体非整倍体疾病筛查 [19]。

目前许多孕妇愿意接受NIPT检查以识别胎儿T21、T18、T13的潜在风险。然而,假阳性和假阴性NIPT结果仍不可忽视 [18]。最近,一项荟萃分析报告了高危、常规和混合组之间的检测情况 [20]。在高危组中,NIPT检测T21的灵敏度为99%,FPR小于1%,但检测T18和T13的灵敏度低较低。常规组中检出T21的灵敏度在96.7%~100%之间,FPR在0%~0.94%之间。T18的灵敏度在92.3%~100%之间,FPR在0%~0.22%之间。T13的灵敏度在87.5%~100%之间,FPR在0%~0.25%之间。

分子生物学技术的快速发展促进了NIPT检测的发展,并且在临床高危妊娠孕妇群中得到了广泛应用。伴随NIPT检测费用大幅度降低和纳入地方生育医疗保险服务,此技术逐渐在普通妊娠妇女中进行应用。本研究评估了小于35岁孕妇实施NIPT的可能性,结果显示相比于孕期产前三联筛查,NIPT具有灵敏度高、特异度高的优势。因此我们认为小于35岁的普通孕妇应用NIPT筛查胎儿染色体非整倍体安全有效,具有高灵敏度和特异度,值得临床广泛推广。

参考文献

[1] Johansson, L.F., De Boer, E.N., De Weerd, H.A., et al. (2017) Novel Algorithms for Improved Sensitivity in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing. Scientific Reports, 7, Article No. 1838.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02031-5
[2] Palomaki, G.E., Kloza, E.M., Lambert-Messerlian, G.M., et al. (2011) DNA Sequencing of Maternal Plasma to Detect Down Syndrome: An International Clinical Validation Study. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 913.
https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182368a0e
[3] Palomaki, G.E., Cosmin Deciu, M.S., Ms, E.M.K., et al. (2012) DNA Sequencing of Maternal Plasma Reliably Identifies Trisomy 18 and Trisomy 13 as Well as Down Syndrome: An International Collaborative Study. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 296-305.
https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.73
[4] Norton, M.E., Brar, H., Weiss, J., et al. (2012) Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation (NICE) Study: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study for Detection of Fetal Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 207, 137.e1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.021
[5] Mccullough, R.M., Almasri, E.A., Guan, X., et al. (2014) Non-Invasive Prenatal Chromosomal Aneuploidy Testing—Clinical Experience: 100,000 Clinical Samples. PLoS ONE, 9, e109173.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109173
[6] 国家卫生计生委办公厅. 《国家卫生计生委办公厅关于规范有序开展孕妇外周血胎儿游离DNA产前筛查与诊断工作的通知》国卫办妇幼发(2016)45号[Z]. 2016.
[7] 赵晓曦, 武艾宁, 于荣鑫, 等. 内蒙古自治区无创产前基因检测高危孕妇的染色体异常状况分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2018, 14(2): 224-229.
[8] 杨延龙, 谢明水. 无创产前检测技术筛查染色体非整倍体疾病中的参考价值分析[J]. 中国优生与遗传杂志, 2019, 27(4): 426-428.
[9] Dai, R., Yu, Y., Zhang, H., et al. (2021) Analysis of 17,428 Pregnant Women Undergoing Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Chromosome in Northeast China. Medicine, 100, e24740.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000024740
[10] Nygren, A.O., Dean, J., Jensen, T.J., et al. (2010) Quantification of Fetal DNA by Use of Methylation-Based DNA Discrimination. Clinical Chemistry, 56, 1627-1635.
https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.146290
[11] Simons, A., Shaffer, L.G. and Hastings, R.J. (2013) Cytogenetic Nomenclature: Changes in the ISCN 2013 Compared to the 2009 Edition. Cytogenetic and Genome Research, 141, 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000353118
[12] Neyt, M., Hulstaert, F. and Gyselaers, W. (2014) Introducing the Non-Invasive Prenatal Test for Trisomy 21 in Belgium: A Cost-Consequences Analysis. BMJ Open, 4, e005922.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005922
[13] 孙秀敏, 张俊芳, 石彦蕊, 等. 妊娠早期母体血清miR-34a和miR-206检测联合胎儿颈项透明层厚度筛查胎儿先天性心脏病的价值[J]. 标记免疫分析与临床, 2020(3): 408-411.
[14] Verloes, A., Gillerot, Y., Van Maldergem, L., et al. (2001) Major Decrease in the Incidence of Trisomy 21 at Birth in South Belgium: Mass Impact of Triple Test? European Journal of Human Genetics, 9, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200575
[15] Kostenko, E., Chantraine, F., Vandeweyer, K., et al. (2019) Clinical and Economic Impact of Adopting Noninvasive Prenatal Testing as a Primary Screening Method for Fetal Aneuploidies in the General Pregnancy Population. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 45, 413-423.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000491750
[16] 常家祯, 戚庆炜, 周希亚, 等. 10,577例基于二代测序的胎儿非整倍体异常无创产前筛查临床应用效力评估[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 27(12): 7-11.
[17] Lo, Y.M., Corbetta, N., Chamberlain, P.F., et al. (1997) Presence of Fetal DNA in Maternal Plasma and Serum. The Lancet (London, England), 350, 485-487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02174-0
[18] Hartwig, T.S., Ambye, L., Rensen, S., et al. (2017) Discordant Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)—A Systematic Review. Prenatal Diagnosis, 37, 527-539.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5049
[19] Fiorentino, F., Bono, S., Pizzuti, F., et al. (2016) The Importance of Determining the Limit of Detection of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing Methods. Prenatal Diagnosis, 36, 304-311.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4780
[20] Gil, M.M., Accurti, V., Santacruz, B., et al. (2017) Analysis of Cell-Free DNA in Maternal Blood in Screening for Aneuploidies: Updated Meta-Analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 50, 302-314.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17647