Literature DB >> 19862770

Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype.

Linda Kleeman1, Diana W Bianchi, Lisa G Shaffer, Emily Rorem, Janet Cowan, Sabrina D Craigo, Hocine Tighiouart, Louise E Wilkins-Haug.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively study the addition of array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to the prenatal evaluation of fetal structural anomalies.
METHODS: Pregnant women carrying fetuses with a major structural abnormality were recruited at the time of invasive procedure for chromosome analysis. Only women whose fetuses had a normal karyotype (n = 50) were subsequently evaluated by array CGH using one of two arrays (1887 clones covering 622 loci or subsequently 4685 clones covering 1500 loci).
RESULTS: The mean gestational age of the fetuses was 24.5 weeks (range 11-38 weeks). The most prevalent anomalies were cardiac, central nervous system, skeletal, and urogenital. The median turnaround time for culturing and array CGH diagnosis was 18 days (range 2-72). Four of 50 fetuses had abnormal array results. One (2%) was clinically significant and three (6%) were inherited or benign variants.
CONCLUSIONS: Array CGH studies in fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype detected clinically significant copy number alterations in 1 of 50 cases. This percentage (2%) is consistent with prior prenatal reports. Further studies are warranted to more precisely identify which fetal anomalies are associated with copy number alterations of clinical significance. Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19862770      PMCID: PMC4459708          DOI: 10.1002/pd.2367

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Telomeres: a diagnosis at the end of the chromosomes.

Authors:  B B A De Vries; R Winter; A Schinzel; C van Ravenswaaij-Arts
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.318

2.  Distribution of abnormal karyotypes among malformed fetuses detected by ultrasound throughout gestation.

Authors:  N Rizzo; M C Pittalis; G Pilu; A Perolo; C Banzi; A Visentin; L Bovicelli
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Use of targeted array-based CGH for the clinical diagnosis of chromosomal imbalance: is less more?

Authors:  Bassem A Bejjani; Reza Saleki; Blake C Ballif; Emily A Rorem; Kyle Sundin; Aaron Theisen; Catherine D Kashork; Lisa G Shaffer
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2005-04-30       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genomic hybridisation in fetuses with multiple malformations.

Authors:  C Le Caignec; M Boceno; P Saugier-Veber; S Jacquemont; M Joubert; A David; T Frebourg; J M Rival
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.318

5.  Prenatal detection of subtelomeric rearrangements by multi-subtelomere FISH in a cohort of fetuses with major malformations.

Authors:  Jennifer Gignac; Karine Danis; Frédérique Tihy; Emmanuelle Lemyre
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  The detection of subtelomeric chromosomal rearrangements in idiopathic mental retardation.

Authors:  J Flint; A O Wilkie; V J Buckle; R M Winter; A J Holland; H E McDermid
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases.

Authors:  Ignatia B Van den Veyver; Ankita Patel; Chad A Shaw; Amber N Pursley; Sung-Hae L Kang; Marcia J Simovich; Patricia A Ward; Sandra Darilek; Anthony Johnson; Sarah E Neill; Weimin Bi; Lisa D White; Christine M Eng; James R Lupski; Sau Wai Cheung; Arthur L Beaudet
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Fetal ultrasound abnormalities: correlation with fetal karyotype, autopsy findings, and postnatal outcome--five-year prospective study.

Authors:  R D Wilson; D Chitayat; B C McGillivray
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1992-11-15

9.  Comparison of microarray-based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens.

Authors:  Lisa G Shaffer; Justine Coppinger; Sarah Alliman; Beth A Torchia; Aaron Theisen; Blake C Ballif; Bassem A Bejjani
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 10.  Microarray technology in obstetrics and gynecology: a guide for clinicians.

Authors:  Kenneth Ward
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-04-17       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine: progress and challenges.

Authors:  Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Microarrays as a diagnostic tool in prenatal screening strategies: ethical reflection.

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

3.  Application of SNP array for rapid prenatal diagnosis: implementation, genetic counselling and diagnostic flow.

Authors:  Malgorzata Srebniak; Marjan Boter; Grétel Oudesluijs; Marieke Joosten; Lutgarde Govaerts; Diane Van Opstal; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Prenatal and postnatal findings in a 10.6 Mb interstitial deletion at 10p11.22-p12.31.

Authors:  Simona Sosoi; Ioana Streata; Stefania Tudorache; Florin Burada; Mirela Siminel; Nicolae Cernea; Mihai Ioana; Dominic Gabriel Iliescu; Francisc Mixich
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 3.172

5.  The future of prenatal cytogenetic diagnostics: a personal perspective.

Authors:  Charles Lee
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 6.  Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis.

Authors:  Brynn Levy; Ronald Wapner
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial.

Authors:  Ronald J Wapner; Deborah A Driscoll; Joe Leigh Simpson
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 8.  Evolving applications of microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Melissa S Savage; Mirella J Mourad; Ronald J Wapner
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.927

9.  Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Francesco Fiorentino; Stefania Napoletano; Fiorina Caiazzo; Mariateresa Sessa; Sara Bono; Letizia Spizzichino; Anthony Gordon; Andrea Nuccitelli; Giuseppe Rizzo; Marina Baldi
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 10.  Clinical impact of copy number variation analysis using high-resolution microarray technologies: advantages, limitations and concerns.

Authors:  Curtis R Coughlin; Gunter H Scharer; Tamim H Shaikh
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.