Literature DB >> 11787042

The diagnostic performance of cytogenetic investigation in amniotic fluid cells and chorionic villi.

F J Los1, C van Den Berg, H I Wildschut, H Brandenburg, N S den Hollander, E M Schoonderwaldt, L Pijpers, R Jan H Galjaard, D Van Opstal.   

Abstract

First-trimester chorionic villus sampling has not reached the popularity of second-trimester amniocentesis in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis, in contrast to initial expectations. We investigated whether a difference in the diagnostic performances of cytogenetic investigation in amniotic fluid (AF) cells and chorionic villi in favour of AF-cells might justify this. Diagnostic performance was measured as laboratory failure rate, karyotype quality (G-band score, rate of follow-up samples, rate of wrong diagnoses), and karyotype representativity (rate of follow-up samples, rate of wrong diagnoses). From 1993-1999, 11 883 AF-samples were investigated (AF-cells). In chorionic villi, short term culture preparations solely were karyotyped from 1993-1996 (n=3499) (STC-villi), short and long-term culture preparations simultaneously provided a sufficient amount of tissue being available from 1997 onwards (n=1829) ((STC+LTC)-villi). Laboratory failure rates were the same after amniocentesis (0.40%) and chorionic villus sampling (0.50%). G-band scores (mean+/-SD) were equal in AF-cells (373+/-38.1) and LTC-villi (364+/-32.6) but significantly lower in STC-villi (311+/-34.6) (p=0.001). Follow-up sampling rates because of quality reasons were the same in AF-cells (0.14%), STC- villi (0.13%) and (STC+LTC)-villi (0.11%). Two wrong diagnoses turned up among AF-cells. Follow-up sampling rates because of representativity reasons differed significantly between AF-cells (0.10%), (STC+LTC)-villi (1.31%), and STC-villi (1.99%) (p<0.001). However, the ratios of the total numbers of follow-up samples and uncertain or abnormal cytogenetic results in STC, and (STC+LTC)-villi at cytogenetic risks > or =3% (0.132 and 0.160, respectively) were equal to that in AF-cells at risks <3% (0.155). Two wrong diagnoses were made in STC-villi. Diagnostic performance improved in the rank order of STC-villi, (STC+LTC)-villi and AF-cells. At cytogenetic risks > or =3%, (STC+LTC)-villi showed a diagnostic performance equal to that in AF-cells. This might justify a selective use of chorionic villus sampling. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11787042     DOI: 10.1002/pd.194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  4 in total

1.  The Foundation in Evidence of Medical and Dental Telephone Consultations.

Authors:  Martina Albrecht; Florian Isenbeck; Jüürgen Kasper; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and array comparative genomic hybridization analyses for prenatal diagnosis of cytogenomic abnormalities.

Authors:  Zhiyong Xu; Qian Geng; Fuwei Luo; Fang Xu; Peining Li; Jiansheng Xie
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 2.009

3.  Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the M.A.K.E. study.

Authors:  Elisabeth M A Boormans; Erwin Birnie; Hajo I Wildschut; Heleen G Schuring-Blom; Dick Oepkes; Carla A C van Oppen; Jan G Nijhuis; Merryn V E Macville; Angelique J A Kooper; Karin Huijsdens; Mariëtte V J Hoffer; Attie Go; Johan Creemers; Shama L Bhola; Katia M Bilardo; Ron Suijkerbuijk; Katelijne Bouman; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Gouke J Bonsel; Jan Mm van Lith
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Can we rely on the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification method (MLPA) for prenatal diagnosis?

Authors:  Mir Davood Omrani; Faezeh Azizi; Masoumeh Rajabibazl; Niloufar Safavi Naini; Sara Omrani; Arezo Mona Abbasi; Soraya Saleh Gargari
Journal:  Iran J Reprod Med       Date:  2014-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.