Literature DB >> 22034057

Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases.

Francesco Fiorentino1, Fiorina Caiazzo, Stefania Napolitano, Letizia Spizzichino, Sara Bono, Mariateresa Sessa, Andrea Nuccitelli, Anil Biricik, Anthony Gordon, Giuseppe Rizzo, Marina Baldi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of offering array-based comparative genomic hybridization testing for prenatal diagnosis as a first-line test, a prospective study was performed, comparing the results achieved from array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) with those obtained from conventional karyotype.
METHOD: Women undergoing amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling were offered aCGH analysis. A total of 1037 prenatal samples were processed in parallel using both aCGH and G-banding for standard karyotyping. Specimen types included amniotic fluid (89.0%), chorionic villus sampling (9.5%) and cultured amniocytes (1.5%).
RESULTS: Chromosomal abnormalities were identified in 34 (3.3%) samples; in 9 out of 34 cases (26.5%) aCGH detected pathogenic copy number variations that would not have been found if only a standard karyotype had been performed. aCGH was also able to detect chromosomal mosaicism at as low as a 10% level. There was complete concordance between the conventional karyotyping and aCGH results, except for 2 cases that were only correctly diagnosed by aCGH.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that aCGH represents an improved diagnostic tool for prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Although larger studies are needed, our results provide further evidence on the feasibility of introducing aCGH as a first-line diagnostic test in routine prenatal diagnosis practice.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22034057     DOI: 10.1002/pd.2884

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Karin E M Diderich; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marieke Joosten; Sam Riedijk; Robert Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  A new case of interstitial 1q 25.3-32.1 deletion: cytogenetic analysis molecular characterization and ultrasound findings.

Authors:  Francesco Libotte; Domenico Bizzoco; Ivan Gabrielli; Caterina Tamburrino; Cristina Ernandez; Lorena Carpineto; Maria Pia D'Aleo; Antonella Cima; Alvaro Mesoraca; Pietro Cignini; Alessia Aloisi; Roberto Angioli; Salvatore Giovanni Vitale; Claudio Giorlandino
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2015 Jan-Jun

Review 3.  Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis.

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

4.  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

5.  Perspective on the technical challenges involved in the implementation of array-CGH in prenatal diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Jonathan L A Callaway; Shuwen Huang; Evangelia Karampetsou; John A Crolla
Journal:  Mol Biotechnol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.695

6.  Variants of uncertain significance in prenatal microarrays: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  A H Mardy; A P Wiita; B V Wayman; K Drexler; T N Sparks; M E Norton
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  Prenatal Diagnosis of Cystic Hygroma related to a Deletion of 16q24.1 with Haploinsufficiency of FOXF1 and FOXC2 Genes.

Authors:  Matthew J Garabedian; Donna Wallerstein; Nubia Medina; James Byrne; Robert J Wallerstein
Journal:  Case Rep Genet       Date:  2012-08-28

8.  Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound.

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

Review 9.  Implementation of high resolution whole genome array CGH in the prenatal clinical setting: advantages, challenges, and review of the literature.

Authors:  Paola Evangelidou; Angelos Alexandrou; Maria Moutafi; Marios Ioannides; Pavlos Antoniou; George Koumbaris; Ioannis Kallikas; Voula Velissariou; Carolina Sismani; Philippos C Patsalis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Danielle Soucier; Karen Hanson; Melissa S Savage; Laird Jackson; Ronald J Wapner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.