Decoding 22q11.2: prenatal profiling and first‐trimester risk assessment in Danish nationwide cohort
Authors: Gadsbøll K. , Vogel I. , Pedersen L. H. , Kristensen S. E. , Steffensen E. H. , Wright A. , Wright D. , Hyett J. , Petersen O. B. ,   The Danish Cytogenetic Central Registry study group
Published: August 2023

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo examine the distribution of nuchal translucency thickness (NT), free β‐human chorionic gonadotropin (β‐hCG) and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A (PAPP‐A) in pregnancies with a fetal 22q11.2 aberration. Furthermore, the performance of combined first‐trimester screening (cFTS) and a new risk algorithm targeting 22q11.2 deletions in detecting affected pregnancies was evaluated. Finally, prenatal malformations and pregnancy outcome were assessed.MethodsThis was a nationwide registry‐based cohort study of all pregnancies that underwent prenatal screening with a due date between January 2008 and December 2018 in Denmark. All cases with a fetal 22q11.2 deletion or duplication (hg19 chr22:18.9mio‐25.0mio) diagnosed pre‐ or postnatally or following pregnancy loss or termination of pregnancy were retrieved from the Danish Cytogenetic Central Register and linked with pregnancy data from the Danish Fetal Medicine Database. Fetal and maternal characteristics, including cFTS results and pregnancy outcome, of pregnancies with any 22q11.2 deletion or duplication (LCR22‐A to ‐H) and pregnancies with a classic deletion or duplication (LCR22‐A to ‐D) diagnosed by chromosomal microarray were compared with those of a chromosomally normal reference group. A risk algorithm was developed for assessing patient‐specific risks for classic 22q11.2 deletions based on NT, PAPP‐A and β‐hCG. Detection rates and false‐positive rates at different risk cut‐offs were calculated.ResultsWe included data on 143 pregnancies with a fetal 22q11.2 aberration, of which 97 were deletions (54 classic) and 46 were duplications (32 classic). NT was significantly increased in fetuses with a classic deletion (mean, 1.89 mm), those with any deletion (mean, 1.78 mm) and those with any duplication (mean, 1.86 mm) compared to the reference group (mean, 1.65 mm). β‐hCG multiples of the median (MoM) was decreased in all 22q11.2 subgroups compared with the reference group (mean, 1.02) and reached significance in pregnancies with a classic deletion and those with any deletion (mean, 0.77 and 0.71, respectively). PAPP‐A MoM was significantly decreased in pregnancies with a classic duplication and those with any duplication (mean, 0.57 and 0.63, respectively), and was significantly increased in pregnancies with a classic deletion and those with any deletion (mean, 1.34 and 1.16, respectively), compared to reference pregnancies (mean, 1.01). The screen‐positive rate by cFTS was significantly increased in pregnancies with a classic deletion (13.7%), any deletion (12.5%), a classic duplication (46.9%) or any duplication (37.8%) compared to the reference group (4.5%). A risk algorithm targeting classic 22q11.2 deletions more than doubled the prenatal detection rate of classic 22q11.2 deletions, but with a substantial increase in the false‐positive rate. Structural malformations were detected in 41%, 35%, 17% and 25% of the pregnancies with a classic deletion, any deletion, classic duplication or any duplication, respectively. Pregnancy loss occurred in 40% of pregnancies with a classic deletion and 5% of those with a classic duplication diagnosed prenatally or following pregnancy loss.ConclusionsThe distribution of cFTS markers in pregnancies with a classic 22q11.2 duplication resembles that of the common trisomies, with decreased levels of PAPP‐A. However, classic 22q11.2 deletions are associated with increased levels of PAPP‐A, which likely limits early prenatal detection using the current cFTS risk algorithm. The scope for improving early detection of classic 22q11.2 deletions using targeted risk algorithms based on NT, PAPP‐A and β‐hCG is limited. This demonstrates the capability, but also the limitations, of cFTS markers in detecting atypical chromosomal anomalies, which is important knowledge when designing new prenatal screening programs. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.