Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: Updated meta-analysis
Abstract
Objectives: To review clinical validation or implementation studies of maternal blood cell‐free (cf) DNA analysis and define the performance of screening for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA). Methods: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were performed to identify all peer‐reviewed articles on cfDNA testing in screening for aneuploidies between January 2011, when the first such study was published, and 31 December 2016. The inclusion criteria were peer‐reviewed study reporting on clinical validation or implementation of maternal cfDNA testing in screening for aneuploidies, in which data on pregnancy outcome were provided for more than 85% of the study population. We excluded case–control studies, proof‐of‐principle articles and studies in which the laboratory scientists carrying out the tests were aware of fetal karyotype or pregnancy outcome. Pooled detection rates (DRs) and false‐positive rates (FPRs) were calculated using bivariate random‐effects regression models. Results: In total, 35 relevant studies were identified and these were used for the meta‐analysis on the performance of cfDNA testing in screening for aneuploidies. These studies reported cfDNA results in relation to fetal karyotype from invasive testing or clinical outcome. In the combined total of 1963 cases of trisomy 21 and 223 932 non‐trisomy 21 singleton pregnancies, the weighted pooled DR and FPR were 99.7% (95% CI, 99.1–99.9%) and 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02–0.07%), respectively. In a total of 563 cases of trisomy 18 and 222 013 non‐trisomy 18 singleton pregnancies, the weighted pooled DR and FPR were 97.9% (95% CI, 94.9–99.1%) and 0.04% (95% CI, 0.03–0.07%), respectively. In a total of 119 cases of trisomy 13 and 212 883 non‐trisomy 13 singleton pregnancies, the weighted pooled DR and FPR were 99.0% (95% CI, 65.8–100%) and 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02–0.07%), respectively. In a total of 36 cases of monosomy X and 7676 unaffected singleton pregnancies, the weighted pooled DR and FPR were 95.8% (95% CI, 70.3–99.5%) and 0.14% (95% CI, 0.05–0.38%), respectively. In a combined total of 17 cases of SCA other than monosomy X and 5400 unaffected singleton pregnancies, the weighted pooled DR and FPR were 100% (95% CI, 83.6–100%) and 0.004% (95% CI, 0.0–0.08%), respectively. For twin pregnancies, in a total of 24 cases of trisomy 21 and 1111 non‐trisomy 21 cases, the DR was 100% (95% CI, 95.2–100%) and FPR was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0–0.003%), respectively. Conclusions: Screening by analysis of cfDNA in maternal blood in singleton pregnancies could detect > 99% of fetuses with trisomy 21, 98% of trisomy 18 and 99% of trisomy 13 at a combined FPR of 0.13%. The number of reported cases of SCA is too small for accurate assessment of performance of screening. In twin pregnancies, performance of screening for trisomy 21 is encouraging but the number of cases reported is small. Copyright © 2017 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 singletons, screening with cfDNA resulted in the detection of fetuses with trisomy 21, 18 and 13 at rates of more than 99%, 98% and 99%, respectively, with a false-positive rate of 0.13%.
“This was also highlighted by a meta-analysis that demonstrated that in singletons, screening with cfDNA resulted in the detection of fetuses with trisomy 21, 18 and 13 at even higher rates of more than 99%, 98% and 99%, respectively, with a false-positive rate of 0.13% [81].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [81]
Cites
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369 · see citing works
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pierpont, M. E., Brueckner, M., Chung, W. K., Garg, V., Lacro, R. V., McGuire, A. L., Mital, S., Priest, J. R., Pu, W. T., Roberts, A., et al. (2018) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000606 · Cited by 654 · see citing works
Health Supervision for Children and Adolescents With Down Syndrome
Bull, M. J., Trotter, T., Santoro, S. L., Christensen, C., Grout, R. W., & THE COUNCIL ON GENETICS (2022) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2022-057010 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
Hui, L., Ellis, K., Mayen, D., Pertile, M. D., Reimers, R., Sun, L., Vermeesch, J., Vora, N. L., & Chitty, L. S. (2023) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.6357 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Good clinical practice advice: Management of twin pregnancy.
FIGO Working Group on Good Clinical Practice in Maternal–Fetal Medicine (2019) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.12742 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Implications of fetoplacental mosaicism on cell-free DNA testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies
Grati, F. R., Bajaj, K., Zanatta, V., Malvestiti, F., Malvestiti, B., Marcato, L., Grimi, B., Maggi, F., Simoni, G., Gross, S. J., et al. (2017) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.5138 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Use of artificial intelligence in obstetrics: Not quite ready for prime time
Sarno, L., Neola, D., Carbone, L., Saccone, G., Carlea, A., Miceli, M., Iorio, G. G., Mappa, I., Rizzo, G., Girolamo, R. D., et al. (2023) · American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100792 · Cited by 47 · 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
- Gil, M. M., Accurti, V., Santacruz, B., Plana, M. N., & Nicolaides, K. H.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (ES)
- King's College Hospital (GB)
- Hospital Universitario de Torrejón (ES)
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Ramón y Cajal Hospital (IRYCIS) CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP) Madrid Spain
- Corresponding author
- Nicolaides, K. H.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-07-27
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 302-314
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2607030666
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 13.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Fetal Medicine Foundation (1037116)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
- Keywords
- cell-free DNA, maternal blood, non-invasive prenatal testing, fetal aneuploidy screening, Down syndrome, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, sex chromosome aneuploidy, diagnostic accuracy, false positive rate, detection rate, pregnancy outcomes, clinical validation, implementation research, prenatal diagnosis, Down syndrome screening
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