OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rate by microarray analysis for chromosome abnormalities in a prenatal population to that of a neonatal population referred for diagnostic testing. METHODS: Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis was performed for 151 prenatal cases and compared with the results from 1375 postnatal cases less than 3 months of age. RESULTS: Two of 151 prenatal cases (1.3%) showed a clinically significant cytogenetic abnormality. In contrast, of the 1375 postnatal cases studied, 11.4% showed a cytogenetic abnormality by aCGH. Many of these (40%) were referred for aCGH because of dysmorphic features, a clinical indication unlikely to be identified in the prenatal population. CONCLUSIONS: The chance of detecting a chromosome abnormality in a prenatal population that has already been screened by routine cytogenetics is approximately 1.3%. However, given that many of the abnormal array results in the neonatal population were among those with dysmorphic features as the primary indication for testing, which are not easily identifiable by ultrasound, offering prenatal testing by aCGH to a wider population would likely result in a higher detection rate. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rate by microarray analysis for chromosome abnormalities in a prenatal population to that of a neonatal population referred for diagnostic testing. METHODS: Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis was performed for 151 prenatal cases and compared with the results from 1375 postnatal cases less than 3 months of age. RESULTS: Two of 151 prenatal cases (1.3%) showed a clinically significant cytogenetic abnormality. In contrast, of the 1375 postnatal cases studied, 11.4% showed a cytogenetic abnormality by aCGH. Many of these (40%) were referred for aCGH because of dysmorphic features, a clinical indication unlikely to be identified in the prenatal population. CONCLUSIONS: The chance of detecting a chromosome abnormality in a prenatal population that has already been screened by routine cytogenetics is approximately 1.3%. However, given that many of the abnormal array results in the neonatal population were among those with dysmorphic features as the primary indication for testing, which are not easily identifiable by ultrasound, offering prenatal testing by aCGH to a wider population would likely result in a higher detection rate. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Merryn V E Macville; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Jan M M van Lith; Guido M W R de Wert Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Suzanne G M Frints; Guido M W R de Wert Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Ji Hyeon Park; Jung Hoon Woo; Sung Han Shim; Song-Ju Yang; Young Min Choi; Kap-Seok Yang; Dong Hyun Cha Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Linda Kleeman; Diana W Bianchi; Lisa G Shaffer; Emily Rorem; Janet Cowan; Sabrina D Craigo; Hocine Tighiouart; Louise E Wilkins-Haug Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Jm Friedman; Shelin Adam; Laura Arbour; Linlea Armstrong; Agnes Baross; Patricia Birch; Cornelius Boerkoel; Susanna Chan; David Chai; Allen D Delaney; Stephane Flibotte; William T Gibson; Sylvie Langlois; Emmanuelle Lemyre; H Irene Li; Patrick MacLeod; Joan Mathers; Jacques L Michaud; Barbara C McGillivray; Millan S Patel; Hong Qian; Guy A Rouleau; Margot I Van Allen; Siu-Li Yong; Farah R Zahir; Patrice Eydoux; Marco A Marra Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 3.969