Literature DB >> 10521750

Utility of minor ultrasonographic markers in the prediction of abnormal fetal karyotype at a prenatal diagnostic center.

B D Sohl1, A L Scioscia, N E Budorick, T R Moore.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to assess the value of minor ultrasonographic markers in predicting significant karyotypic abnormalities. STUDY
DESIGN: A total of 2743 fetuses (14-24 weeks' gestation) prospectively underwent a detailed ultrasonographic survey before genetic amniocentesis. Criteria for 8 minor ultrasonographic markers were established. Odds ratios for significant karyotypic abnormalities in the presence of minor ultrasonographic markers were calculated with the chi(2) and Fisher exact tests.
RESULTS: Of the fetuses, 14.6% had a single minor ultrasonographic marker, 2.1% had >/=2 minor ultrasonographic markers, and 2.7% had >/=1 major ultrasonographic abnormality. One hundred four fetuses (3.8%) had an abnormal karyotype. Compared with a normal ultrasonographic examination result a single minor ultrasonographic marker increased the risk of karyotypic abnormality 5.7-fold (95% confidence interval, 3.5-9.3), whereas multiple minor markers increased the risk of an abnormal karyotype 12-fold (95% confidence interval, 5.5-26.5). When they were identified ultrasonographically in isolation, echogenic bowel, 2-vessel umbilical cord, echogenic intracardiac foci, choroidal separation, and choroid plexus cysts were statistically associated with an abnormal karyotype. When minor markers were identified in clusters of >/=2, echogenic bowel, short femur, 2-vessel umbilical cord, echogenic intracardiac foci, and mild ventriculomegaly were significantly predictive of karyotypic abnormality. With respect to the a priori aneuploidy risk of 1:26 and the a priori Down syndrome risk of 1:50, a normal ultrasonographic examination result reduced the risks to 1:67 and 1:120, respectively. The use of minor ultrasonographic markers in addition to major ultrasonographic abnormalities increased the detection of karyotypic abnormality from 27.9% to 68.3%. For trisomy 21 the sensitivity rose from 16.4% to 67. 3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant karyotypic abnormality risk assessment by ultrasonography was greatly enhanced by the addition of minor ultrasonographic markers. Further, clusters of minor ultrasonographic markers greatly increased the likelihood of karyotypic abnormality compared with a single minor marker. A completely normal ultrasonographic examination result reduced the risk of an abnormal karyotype by 62%. Inclusion of minor ultrasonographic markers in the genetic sonogram in a high-risk population will allow the detection of 68% of fetuses with karyotypic abnormalities with a false-positive rate of 17%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10521750     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70322-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  5 in total

Review 1.  Ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy in second trimester: are we lost?

Authors:  Sameer Raniga; P D Desai; Hetal Parikh
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2006-01-11

2.  Swedish University Students' Opinion Regarding Information About Soft Markers.

Authors:  Afsaneh Hayat Roshanai; Peter Lindgren; Karin Nordin; Charlotta Ingvoldstad
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  The role of ultrasound in the diagnosis of fetal genetic syndromes.

Authors:  Shayna N Conner; Ryan E Longman; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 5.237

4.  Influence of second-trimester ultrasound markers for Down syndrome in pregnant women of advanced maternal age.

Authors:  Mariza Rumi Kataguiri; Edward Araujo Júnior; Luiz Claudio Silva Bussamra; Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza; Antonio Fernandes Moron
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2014-03-25

5.  Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers.

Authors:  Meiying Cai; Na Lin; Xuemei Chen; Meimei Fu; Nan Guo; Liangpu Xu; Hailong Huang
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 3.063

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.