The impact of confined placental mosaicism on prenatal cell-free DNA screening: insights from a monocentric study of 99 cases

• Published in: Placenta (Eastbourne) 2024-07, Vol.152, p.17-22
• Main Authors: Rosenblum, Jessica, Blaumeiser, Bettina, Janssens, Katrien
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - blood; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - genetics; Confined placental mosaicism; False Positive Reactions; False-positive; Female; Humans; Internal Medicine; Mosaicism; Noninvasive Prenatal Testing - methods; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Placenta - pathology; Pregnancy; Prenatal cell-free DNA screening
• ISSN: 0143-4004; 1532-3102; 1532-3102
• DOI: 10.1016/j.placenta.2024.04.012

AbstractIntroductionConfined placental mosaicism (CPM) is thought to be one of the main sources of false-positive prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening results, but extensive and systematic studies to prove this statement are limited. We evaluate the contribution of CPM to false-positive prenatal cfDNA screening results in the largest cohort published to date. MethodWe systematically offered postnatal analysis on placenta and umbilical cord to women who had a negative amniocentesis following a positive prenatal cfDNA screening result. A standardized protocol was used in which (when available) biopsies were taken at five locations in the placenta and umbilical cord. ResultsWe analyzed a series of 99 placentas. CPM could be confirmed in 32.3% of cases (32/99). CPM was detected across all subtypes of chromosomal aberrations (common and rare autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome abnormalities, copy number variations and autosomal monosomies). A lower detection rate was present in umbilical cord biopsies in comparison with placental biopsies. When comparing different sections of the placenta, no clear difference could be observed with regard to the probability of CPM being present nor to the grade of mosaicism. DiscussionWe confirm an important role for CPM in explaining false-positive prenatal cfDNA screening results. Placental regional differences are common. Given its limited clinical relevance, we do however not advocate placental studies in a diagnostic setting.