Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: Population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening
Abstract
Objectives: Targeted non‐invasive prenatal testing ( NIPT ) tests for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies and could be an alternative to traditional karyotyping. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of missing other abnormal karyotypes of probable phenotypic significance by NIPT . Methods: This was a retrospective population‐based analysis of all singleton pregnancies booked for combined first‐trimester screening ( cFTS ) in Denmark over a 4‐year period. Data concerning maternal demographics, cFTS and prenatal or postnatal karyotypes were collected from the Danish Fetal Medicine database. Karyotypes were classified according to whether the chromosomal anomaly would have been detected by NIPT and whether it was likely to affect phenotype . Results: cFTS was completed in 193 638 pregnancies. 10 205 (5.3%) had cytogenetic or molecular analysis performed. Of these, 1122 (11.0%) had an abnormal karyotype, of which 262 (23.4%) would have been missed by NIPT , but would probably have been clinically significant. The prevalence of such ‘atypical abnormal karyotypes’ was increased in women above 45 years of age, in pregnancies with increased nuchal translucency ( NT ) thickness (≥ 3.5 mm), with abnormal levels of free β‐human chorionic gonadotropin (< 0.2 or ≥ 5.0 multiples of the median ( MoM )) or pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A < 0.2 MoM . One or more of these factors was present in 3% of women, and the prevalence of atypical abnormal karyotypes in this high‐risk cohort was 1.6% . Conclusions: A significant proportion of karyotypic abnormalities will be missed by targeted NIPT . Women of advanced maternal age, or with increased fetal NT or abnormal biochemistry, have a higher risk of having a fetus affected by an atypical abnormal karyotype and need to be counseled accordingly when considering NIPT . Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In cases with PAPP-A < 0.2 MoM, the prevalence of atypical abnormal karyotype was 4.17 (95% CI: 3.07-5.65).
“Moreover, in cases with PAPP-A < 0.2 MoM, the prevalence of atypical abnormal karyotype was 4.17 (95% CI: 3.07–5.65)”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [86]
For free β-hCG < 0.2 MoM the relevant prevalence was 7-times higher (95% CI: 4.39-11.14).
“while for free β-hCG < 0.2 MoM the relevant prevalence was 7-times higher (95% CI: 4.39–11.14) [86].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [86]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cell-free DNA Analysis for Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy
Norton, M. E., Jacobsson, B., Swamy, G. K., Laurent, L. C., Ranzini, A. C., Brar, H., Tomlinson, M. W., Pereira, L., Spitz, J. L., Hollemon, D., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1407349 · Cited by 817 · see citing works
Chitty, L. S., Wright, D., Hill, M., Verhoef, T. I., Daley, R., Lewis, C., Mason, S., McKay, F., Jenkins, L., Howarth, A., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i3426 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- Authors
- Petersen, O. B., Vogel, I., Ekelund, C., Hyett, J., Tabor, A., the Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group, & the Danish Clinical Genetics Study Group
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
- Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
- Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Petersen, O. B.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-02-25
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-271
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W1583054954
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 7
- FWCI
- 12.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Keywords
- non-invasive prenatal testing, chromosomal abnormalities, first-trimester screening, missed diagnosis, advanced maternal age, nuchal translucency, free beta-hCG, PAPP-A, fetal karyotyping, prenatal diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Denmark, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Maternal Age, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A, Prenatal Diagnosis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human, Chromosome Disorders, Nuchal Translucency Measurement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review