Maternal cell-free DNA in early pregnancy for preeclampsia screening: a systematic review

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1007/s00404-024-07905-4
Svitlana Arbuzova, Howard Cuckle
{"title":"Maternal cell-free DNA in early pregnancy for preeclampsia screening: a systematic review","authors":"Svitlana Arbuzova,&nbsp;Howard Cuckle","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07905-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To quantify the separation between maternal blood cell-free (cf)DNA markers in preeclampsia and unaffected pregnancies and compare with existing markers. This approach has not been used in previous studies.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Comprehensive systematic literature search of PubMed to identify studies measuring total cfDNA, fetal cf(f)DNA or the fetal fraction (FF) in pregnant women. Included—studies of asymptomatic pregnancies with subsequent preeclampsia (cases) and unaffected pregnancies (controls) tested in the first or second trimester and before the clinical onset of preeclampsia. Excluded—studies not reporting the median or mean, standard deviation, inter-quartile range or range in cases and controls. Information from 26 eligible studies was entered into a meta-analysis to estimate, for each marker, the Mahalanobis distance, a measure of separation between the overlapping distributions in preeclampsia and unaffected pregnancies. This was compared with estimates for mean arterial pressure (MAP), uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index (UtA-PI), pregnancy associated plasma protein (PAPP)-A and placental growth factor (PlGF).</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The mean Mahalanobis distance for total cfDNA was 0.44 (95% CI 0.12–0.76), which fell between UtA-PI (0.53) and the absolute value of PAPP-A (– 0.36). For cffDNA the distance was 1.03 (0.37–1.69), which is superior to MAP (0.74), UtA-PI, PlGF (– 0.57) and PAPP-A. The distance for FF was – 0.34 (– 0.56 to – 0.12), similar to PAPP-A.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>All three markers have a potential preeclampsia screening role, particularly cffDNA. However, to estimate the screening performance in combination with existing markers further large studies are needed. The current analysis will help in the power calculation for such studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":"311 5","pages":"1249 - 1258"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00404-024-07905-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-024-07905-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To quantify the separation between maternal blood cell-free (cf)DNA markers in preeclampsia and unaffected pregnancies and compare with existing markers. This approach has not been used in previous studies.

Methods

Comprehensive systematic literature search of PubMed to identify studies measuring total cfDNA, fetal cf(f)DNA or the fetal fraction (FF) in pregnant women. Included—studies of asymptomatic pregnancies with subsequent preeclampsia (cases) and unaffected pregnancies (controls) tested in the first or second trimester and before the clinical onset of preeclampsia. Excluded—studies not reporting the median or mean, standard deviation, inter-quartile range or range in cases and controls. Information from 26 eligible studies was entered into a meta-analysis to estimate, for each marker, the Mahalanobis distance, a measure of separation between the overlapping distributions in preeclampsia and unaffected pregnancies. This was compared with estimates for mean arterial pressure (MAP), uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index (UtA-PI), pregnancy associated plasma protein (PAPP)-A and placental growth factor (PlGF).

Results

The mean Mahalanobis distance for total cfDNA was 0.44 (95% CI 0.12–0.76), which fell between UtA-PI (0.53) and the absolute value of PAPP-A (– 0.36). For cffDNA the distance was 1.03 (0.37–1.69), which is superior to MAP (0.74), UtA-PI, PlGF (– 0.57) and PAPP-A. The distance for FF was – 0.34 (– 0.56 to – 0.12), similar to PAPP-A.

Conclusion

All three markers have a potential preeclampsia screening role, particularly cffDNA. However, to estimate the screening performance in combination with existing markers further large studies are needed. The current analysis will help in the power calculation for such studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
母体无细胞DNA在妊娠早期筛查子痫前期:系统回顾。
目的:量化子痫前期和未患妊娠孕妇血细胞游离(cf)DNA标记的分离,并与现有标记进行比较。这种方法在以前的研究中没有使用过。方法:对PubMed进行全面系统的文献检索,找出测定孕妇总cfDNA、胎儿cf(f)DNA或胎儿分数(FF)的研究。纳入研究:在妊娠早期或中期以及子痫前期临床发作之前,对无症状妊娠伴有子痫前期(病例)和未受影响的妊娠(对照组)进行测试。排除研究:未报告病例和对照的中位数或平均值、标准差、四分位数间距或间距的研究。来自26个符合条件的研究的信息被输入到一个荟萃分析中,以估计每个标记的马氏距离,这是子痫前期和未患妊娠重叠分布之间的距离。将其与平均动脉压(MAP)、子宫动脉多普勒脉搏指数(UtA-PI)、妊娠相关血浆蛋白(PAPP)-A和胎盘生长因子(PlGF)的估计值进行比较。结果:总cfDNA的平均马氏距离为0.44 (95% CI 0.12-0.76),介于UtA-PI(0.53)和PAPP-A绝对值(- 0.36)之间。cffDNA的距离为1.03(0.37 ~ 1.69),优于MAP(0.74)、UtA-PI、PlGF(- 0.57)和PAPP-A。FF的距离为- 0.34(- 0.56 ~ - 0.12),与PAPP-A相似。结论:这三种标志物都具有潜在的子痫前期筛查作用,尤其是cffDNA。然而,为了结合现有的标记物来评估筛查效果,还需要进一步的大规模研究。本文的分析将有助于此类研究的功率计算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
期刊最新文献
Comparative validation of a cost-effective in-house 3D-printed LLETZ simulator versus a commercial training model FIGO 2023 staging system with/without molecular classification vs. FIGO 2009 in 172 endometrial cancer patients Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopy for ovarian cystectomy: a prospective, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority pilot trial Obstetric outcomes in second-generation and migrant mothers: a cohort study in the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy Screening-detected refractive errors in infants born after assisted reproductive technology: a prospective cohort study
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1