Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

CASE REPORT article

Front. Genet.

Sec. Human and Medical Genomics

Case Reports: Expanding the Diagnostic Spectrum of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing to Structural Chromosomal Abnormalities

Provisionally accepted
Jong Chul  KimJong Chul Kim1Hyunjin  KimHyunjin Kim1Heeyeon  JangHeeyeon Jang1,2Minyeon  GoMinyeon Go1,2Ji Eun  ParkJi Eun Park1Chang Soo  RyuChang Soo Ryu2Mi Uk  ChinMi Uk Chin1Eun Hye  KimEun Hye Kim1Young Jin  LeeYoung Jin Lee1Sung Han  ShimSung Han Shim1,2*Dong Hyun  ChaDong Hyun Cha1,3*
  • 1CHA Biotech Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 2CHA University, Pocheon-si, Republic of Korea
  • 3CHA Gangnam Medical Center, Gangnam-gu, Republic of Korea

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has recently expanded to include sex chromosomal aneuploidies (SCAs) and copy number variations (CNVs), as well as the commonly screened trisomies (T21, T18, and T13). While the clinical utility of NIPT for detecting common fetal chromosomal aneuploidies is well established, its application in assessing structural chromosomal abnormalities (StrCAs) remains controversial, with limited consensus within the medical community. Furthermore, the accuracy of NIPT for detecting SCAs and CNVs is relatively lower than that for common trisomies. This study reports three cases in which NIPT results suggestive of SCAs were clarified by invasive diagnostic testing to represent underlying structural sex chromosome abnormalities. NIPT results suggestive of SCAs were validated through invasive diagnostic tests, including karyotyping, chromosomal microarray (CMA), quantitative fluorescence PCR (QF-PCR), and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). In the first case, the NIPT result suggestive of a monosomy X-like pattern reflected an underlying structural abnormality. Fetal chromosomal microarray (CMA) revealed a 3.6 Mb deletion involving the Xq27.3–q28 region and a 4.8 Mb duplication encompassing Xq28, with subsequent analysis confirming inactivation of the deleted X chromosome. In the second case, the NIPT result suggesting monosomy X with a low Y chromosome fraction (1.46%) resembled a vanishing twin pattern but was ultimately explained by mosaicism involving a ring Y chromosome (46,X,r(Y)/45,X). CMA revealed a 7.4 Mb duplication of Yp11.31–p11.2 and a 15 Mb deletion of Yq11.21–q11.23, confirming mosaic ring Y formation. In the third case, the NIPT finding suggestive of XYY with Xp22.33–p22.2 deletion was clarified by confirmatory testing as a maternal sex chromosome translocation, 46,X,der(X)t(X;Y)(p22.2;q11.222), detected in the mother with short stature but no other clinical features. In conclusion, these three NIPT findings initially interpreted as SCAs were clarified by confirmatory invasive diagnostics, illustrating the complexity of interpreting results associated with StrCAs. These findings support the potential of NIPT to extend beyond numerical aneuploidy screening and contribute to the detection of structural chromosomal abnormalities.

Keywords: chromosomal microarray, Karyotyping, Non-invasive prenatal testing, Sex chromosomal aneuploidies, structuralchromosomal abnormalities

Received: 14 Nov 2025; Accepted: 02 Feb 2026.

Copyright: © 2026 Kim, Kim, Jang, Go, Park, Ryu, Chin, Kim, Lee, Shim and Cha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Sung Han Shim
Dong Hyun Cha

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.