OBJECTIVE: To design a scheme to rank sonographic anomalies as indicators of aneuploidy and record the distribution of data from 2143 prenatal amniotic fluid/chorionic villous sample diagnoses referred for karyotyping because of fetal anomalies detected with ultrasound. METHODS: In all cases the records of sonographic anomalies were obtained prior to karyotyping. A cascade of seven prospective categories of ultrasound anomalies was chosen and the data were included in the highest compatible sonography category. The categories were in descending order: (I) combined central nervous system (CNS)/cranial shape and cardiac anomalies (excluding spina bifida and anencephaly); (II) key anomaly present (exomphalos/ intrauterine growth restriction/duodenal atresia/cystic hygroma/fetal hydrops/talipes--with other multiple anomalies); (III) CNS +/- other abnormality (excluding choroid plexus cyst, spina bifida, anencephaly); (IVa) increased nuchal translucency--first trimester +/- other abnormality; (IVb) increased nuchal thickening--second trimester +/- other abnormality; (V) cardiac anomaly +/- other abnormality; (VI) other markers of aneuploidy (pyelectasis/two vessel cord/echogenic bowel/short femur); and (VII) other (mostly isolated) malformations. RESULTS: There were 412/2143 (19.2%) chromosome abnormalities detected in this sonographically abnormal group. Overall, the prevalence of aneuploidy significantly ranged from 51 to 3% according to the above I-VII ultrasound categories and from approximately 1-80% for individual ultrasound anomalies. Likelihood ratios were derived for many ultrasound anomalies for several aneuploidy groups: trisomies of 13; 18; and 21; 45,X and 45,X mosaics; triploidy; other autosomal duplications and/or deletions; and other (than 45,X) sex chromosomal aneuploidies. CONCLUSION: It is suggested this data could be used to assist pre-procedural counselling of patients after the ultrasound scan in tertiary referral centres for prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To design a scheme to rank sonographic anomalies as indicators of aneuploidy and record the distribution of data from 2143 prenatal amniotic fluid/chorionic villous sample diagnoses referred for karyotyping because of fetal anomalies detected with ultrasound. METHODS: In all cases the records of sonographic anomalies were obtained prior to karyotyping. A cascade of seven prospective categories of ultrasound anomalies was chosen and the data were included in the highest compatible sonography category. The categories were in descending order: (I) combined central nervous system (CNS)/cranial shape and cardiac anomalies (excluding spina bifida and anencephaly); (II) key anomaly present (exomphalos/ intrauterine growth restriction/duodenal atresia/cystic hygroma/fetal hydrops/talipes--with other multiple anomalies); (III) CNS +/- other abnormality (excluding choroid plexus cyst, spina bifida, anencephaly); (IVa) increased nuchal translucency--first trimester +/- other abnormality; (IVb) increased nuchal thickening--second trimester +/- other abnormality; (V) cardiac anomaly +/- other abnormality; (VI) other markers of aneuploidy (pyelectasis/two vessel cord/echogenic bowel/short femur); and (VII) other (mostly isolated) malformations. RESULTS: There were 412/2143 (19.2%) chromosome abnormalities detected in this sonographically abnormal group. Overall, the prevalence of aneuploidy significantly ranged from 51 to 3% according to the above I-VII ultrasound categories and from approximately 1-80% for individual ultrasound anomalies. Likelihood ratios were derived for many ultrasound anomalies for several aneuploidy groups: trisomies of 13; 18; and 21; 45,X and 45,X mosaics; triploidy; other autosomal duplications and/or deletions; and other (than 45,X) sex chromosomal aneuploidies. CONCLUSION: It is suggested this data could be used to assist pre-procedural counselling of patients after the ultrasound scan in tertiary referral centres for prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis.
Authors: Maria Daniela Renna; Paola Pisani; Francesco Conversano; Emanuele Perrone; Ernesto Casciaro; Gian Carlo Di Renzo; Marco Di Paola; Antonio Perrone; Sergio Casciaro Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2013-10-28
Authors: Lisa G Shaffer; Jill A Rosenfeld; Mindy P Dabell; Justine Coppinger; Anne M Bandholz; Jay W Ellison; J Britt Ravnan; Beth S Torchia; Blake C Ballif; Allan J Fisher Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 3.050