Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Perinatal outcomes of fetal CNVs detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing in Japan

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) enables the screening of fetal chromosomal abnormalities by analyzing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood. Recent technological advancements have expanded its applications to the detection of copy number variations (CNVs). However, the clinical utility of CNV detection remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the association between fetal CNVs detected by genome-wide NIPT and perinatal outcomes in a large cohort in Japan. This retrospective cohort study included 46,082 patients who underwent NIPT at certified facilities in Japan between January 2015 and September 2021. Genome-wide NIPT was performed using massively parallel sequencing to detect fetal CNVs exceeding 7 Mb. Despite their small size, well-characterized microdeletions, such as 22q11.2 were included. From 46,082 patients with NIPT results, 30,373 cases with known birth outcomes were extracted, and cases with fetal CNV were included in the analysis. Fetal CNVs were detected in 66 patients (0.2%). Adverse outcomes, including miscarriage, growth restriction, and structural abnormalities, were observed in 14 of the 66 cases (21.2%). Pathogenic CNVs were frequently detected even in the 52 cases (78.8%) with favorable outcomes. Genome-wide NIPT may assist in the diagnosis of cases with structural abnormalities when combined with confirmatory testing. Our findings demonstrate that pathogenic CNVs are also detected in a substantial number of structurally normal fetuses with favorable short-term outcomes. This discordance presents a significant challenge for prenatal counseling. The clinical significance of the findings should be clarified through confirmatory testing of CNV cases and the accumulation of data from long-term follow-up studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bianchi DW, Chiu RWK. Sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA during pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:464–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP, et al. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:890–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Haddow JE, Neveux LM, Ehrich M, et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med. 2011;13:913–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;4:15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chitty LS, Bianchi DW. Noninvasive prenatal testing: the paradigm is shifting rapidly. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:511–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL, Redman CW, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet. 1997;350:485–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Suzumori N, Sekizawa A, Takeda E, Samura O, Sasaki A, Akaishi R, et al. Classification of factors involved in nonreportable results of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and prediction of success rate of second NIPT. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39:100–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sago H, Sekizawa A, J.N. Consortium. Nationwide demonstration project of next-generation sequencing of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma in Japan: 1-year experience. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:331–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Suzumori N, Sekizawa A, Tajeda E, Samura O, Sasaki A, Akaishi R, et al. Retrospective details of false-positive and false-negative results in non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;256:75–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Takahashi M, Linh LK, Sayed AM, Imoto A, Sato M, Dila KAS, et al. Non-Invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) implementation in Japan: a comparison with the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:16404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yamada T, Sekizawa A, Fujii Y, Hirose T, Samura O, Suzumori N, et al. Maternal age-specific risk for trisomy 21 based on the clinical performance of NIPT and empirically derived NIPT age-specific positive and negative predictive values in Japan. J Hum Genet. 2018;63:1035–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Suzumori N. What are the ethical issues involved in noninvasive prenatal testing in Japan? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48:300–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Samura O, Sekizawa A, Suzumori N, Sasaki A, Wada S, Hamanoue H, et al. Current status of non-invasive prenatal testing in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43:1245–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Samura O. Update on noninvasive prenatal testing: a review based on current worldwide research. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46:1246–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Connor C, Sato T, Bianchi DW, Fenton K, Somani E, Turriff A, et al. Comparing the introduction and implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States: an integrative review. Prenat Diagn. 2025;45:1244–64.

  16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Committee on Genetics, & Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 226. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:e48–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Soster E, Tynan J, Gibbons C, Meschino W, Wardrop J, Almasri E, et al. Laboratory performance of genome-wide cfDNA for copy number variants as compared to prenatal microarray. Mol Cytogenet. 2023;16:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Pynaker C, Morris F, Hui L, Halliday J. Perinatal outcomes and genomic characteristics of fetal copy number variants: an individual record linkage study of 713 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2023;43:516–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang W, Lu F, Zhang B, Zhou Q, Chen Y, Yu B. Clinical evaluation of non-invasive prenatal screening for the detection of fetal genome-wide copy number variants. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17:253.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2013;48:452–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yan X, Ding K, Zhang X, Zhang S, Peng H, Zhang Y. Analysis of prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy outcomes for rare autosomal trisomies detected by non-invasive prenatal testing in 33,079 cases. BMC Med Genomics. 2025;18:29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Raymond Y, Shavi F, Menezes M, Mol BW, McLennan A, da Silva Costa F, et al. Placental, maternal, fetal, and technical origins of false-positive cell-free DNA screening results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230:381–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Spinella F, Biricik A, Minasi M, Greco E, Fiorentino F. Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eggenhuizen GM, Go A, Koster MPH, Baart EB, Galjaard RJ. Confined placental mosaicism and the association with pregnancy outcome and fetal growth: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2021;27:885–903.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Riggs ER, Anderson EF, Cherry AM, Kantarci S, Kearney H, Patel A, et al. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Genet Med. 2020;22:245–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Izumi K, Krantz ID. Pallister-Killian syndrome. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014;166c:406–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Karaman B, Kayserili H, Ghanbari A, Uyguner ZO, Toksoy G, Altunoglu U, et al. Pallister-Killian syndrome: clinical, cytogenetic and molecular findings in 15 cases. Mol Cytogenet. 2018;11:45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang C, Tang J, Tong K, Huang D, Tu H, Li Q, et al. Expanding the application of non-invasive prenatal testing in the detection of foetal chromosomal copy number variations. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14:292.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Jun Murotsuki (formerly of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Miyagi Children’s Hospital) and Dr. Mika Ito (formerly of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Toyama University Hospital) for their valuable contributions in providing clinical data during the early phase of this study. We also would like to thank the clinical geneticists, counselors, and staff at all institutions that contributed to this study.

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI), Grant Number 23K08810.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Yuka Yamashita, Seiji Wada, Haruhiko Sago, Yuki Ito, Osamu Samura, Nobuhiro Suzumori, Hideaki Sawai, Yuko Tamaki, Yukiko Katagiri, Yoshiki Maeda, Hiroko Morisaki, Akira Namba, Yoshimasa Kamei, Junko Yotsumoto, Yuri Hasegawa, Kiyonori Miura, Setsuko Nakayama, and Akihiko Sekizawa conceptualized and designed the study. All co-authors were responsible for the acquisition and management of clinical data. Koshichi Goto performed the CNV analysis and interpreted the genetic findings. Yuka Yamashita and Akihiko sekizawa wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All co-authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuka Yamashita.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yamashita, Y., Shirato, N., Ishii, T. et al. Perinatal outcomes of fetal CNVs detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing in Japan. J Hum Genet 71, 81–89 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-025-01409-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-025-01409-y

Search

Quick links