Analysis of retest reliability for pregnant women undergoing cfDNA testing with a no-call result

0Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

He, S., Zhang, Q., Chen, M., Chen, X., Liang, B., Lin, N., … Xu, L. (2023). Analysis of retest reliability for pregnant women undergoing cfDNA testing with a no-call result. Molecular Biology Reports, 50(9), 7649–7657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-08591-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free