胎儿分数方法及其临床应用:美国病理学家学院运动的结果。

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Glenn E Palomaki, Philip Wyatt, Ross A Rowsey, Phillip Michael Cacheris, Nathalie Lepage, Marvin R Natowicz, Thomas Long, Ann M Moyer
{"title":"胎儿分数方法及其临床应用:美国病理学家学院运动的结果。","authors":"Glenn E Palomaki, Philip Wyatt, Ross A Rowsey, Phillip Michael Cacheris, Nathalie Lepage, Marvin R Natowicz, Thomas Long, Ann M Moyer","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfaf062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive prenatal screening for common autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletions vary by methodology and laboratory practice. The fetal portion of all cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation defines the fetal fraction (FF). The minimum specimen FF levels for reporting results vary between laboratories as well as the screening target (e.g., common trisomies vs select microdeletions). This variability can lead to confusion for both healthcare providers and patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants in the College of American Pathologists Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing 2021-B Exercise provided FF estimates for 3 manufactured samples. Responses to supplemental questions were also collected and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 72 of 77 participants responded. FF was measured by 66 participants using sequence counts (40), single nucleotide polymorphisms (15), fragment length (24), and Y chromosome sequences (24). Nearly half (48%) used multiple methods. For common trisomies, minimum FFs were none or <1% (n = 7), 1.0% to 3.9% (n = 35), 4.0% to 6.9% (n = 23), and ≥7.0% (n = 1); 4 participants did not measure FF. Challenge-specific FFs were variable with CVs of 13%, 15%, and 36%; the latter rate appears due to that sample's fetal karyotype of 47,XYY. Comparing adjusted FF results for the 3 samples shows that 85% of participant results were within 20% of the consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using multiple methods to estimate FF was common, and cutoff levels for sample suitability varied widely. Within-laboratory FFs were less variable than between laboratories. Current FF estimates from clinical laboratories are not standardized and should be considered laboratory-specific.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fetal Fraction Methodologies and Their Clinical Use: Results of a College of American Pathologists Exercise.\",\"authors\":\"Glenn E Palomaki, Philip Wyatt, Ross A Rowsey, Phillip Michael Cacheris, Nathalie Lepage, Marvin R Natowicz, Thomas Long, Ann M Moyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jalm/jfaf062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive prenatal screening for common autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletions vary by methodology and laboratory practice. The fetal portion of all cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation defines the fetal fraction (FF). The minimum specimen FF levels for reporting results vary between laboratories as well as the screening target (e.g., common trisomies vs select microdeletions). This variability can lead to confusion for both healthcare providers and patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants in the College of American Pathologists Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing 2021-B Exercise provided FF estimates for 3 manufactured samples. Responses to supplemental questions were also collected and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 72 of 77 participants responded. FF was measured by 66 participants using sequence counts (40), single nucleotide polymorphisms (15), fragment length (24), and Y chromosome sequences (24). Nearly half (48%) used multiple methods. For common trisomies, minimum FFs were none or <1% (n = 7), 1.0% to 3.9% (n = 35), 4.0% to 6.9% (n = 23), and ≥7.0% (n = 1); 4 participants did not measure FF. Challenge-specific FFs were variable with CVs of 13%, 15%, and 36%; the latter rate appears due to that sample's fetal karyotype of 47,XYY. Comparing adjusted FF results for the 3 samples shows that 85% of participant results were within 20% of the consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using multiple methods to estimate FF was common, and cutoff levels for sample suitability varied widely. Within-laboratory FFs were less variable than between laboratories. Current FF estimates from clinical laboratories are not standardized and should be considered laboratory-specific.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaf062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaf062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:无创产前筛查常见常染色体三体,性染色体非整倍体和微缺失因方法和实验室实践而异。母体循环中所有无细胞DNA的胎儿部分定义胎儿分数(FF)。报告结果的最低标本FF水平因实验室和筛选目标(例如,常见三体与选择微缺失)而异。这种可变性可能导致医疗保健提供者和患者的混淆。方法:美国病理学家学院无创产前检测2021-B运动的参与者提供了3个制造样本的FF估计。补充问题的回答也被收集和分析。结果:总的来说,77名参与者中有72名做出了回应。66名参与者使用序列计数(40)、单核苷酸多态性(15)、片段长度(24)和Y染色体序列(24)来测量FF。近一半(48%)使用多种方法。对于常见的三体,最小FFs为零或结论:使用多种方法估计FF是常见的,并且样本适用性的截止水平差异很大。实验室内FFs的差异小于实验室间。目前来自临床实验室的FF估计没有标准化,应考虑到实验室的特殊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fetal Fraction Methodologies and Their Clinical Use: Results of a College of American Pathologists Exercise.

Background: Noninvasive prenatal screening for common autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletions vary by methodology and laboratory practice. The fetal portion of all cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation defines the fetal fraction (FF). The minimum specimen FF levels for reporting results vary between laboratories as well as the screening target (e.g., common trisomies vs select microdeletions). This variability can lead to confusion for both healthcare providers and patients.

Methods: Participants in the College of American Pathologists Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing 2021-B Exercise provided FF estimates for 3 manufactured samples. Responses to supplemental questions were also collected and analyzed.

Results: Overall, 72 of 77 participants responded. FF was measured by 66 participants using sequence counts (40), single nucleotide polymorphisms (15), fragment length (24), and Y chromosome sequences (24). Nearly half (48%) used multiple methods. For common trisomies, minimum FFs were none or <1% (n = 7), 1.0% to 3.9% (n = 35), 4.0% to 6.9% (n = 23), and ≥7.0% (n = 1); 4 participants did not measure FF. Challenge-specific FFs were variable with CVs of 13%, 15%, and 36%; the latter rate appears due to that sample's fetal karyotype of 47,XYY. Comparing adjusted FF results for the 3 samples shows that 85% of participant results were within 20% of the consensus.

Conclusions: Using multiple methods to estimate FF was common, and cutoff levels for sample suitability varied widely. Within-laboratory FFs were less variable than between laboratories. Current FF estimates from clinical laboratories are not standardized and should be considered laboratory-specific.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信