Literature DB >> 22467167

Non-targeted whole genome 250K SNP array analysis as replacement for karyotyping in fetuses with structural ultrasound anomalies: evaluation of a one-year experience.

Brigitte H W Faas1, Ilse Feenstra, Alex J Eggink, Angelique J A Kooper, Rolph Pfundt, John M G van Vugt, Nicole de Leeuw.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated both clinical and laboratory aspects of our new strategy offering quantitative fluorescence (QF)-PCR followed by non-targeted whole genome 250K single-nucleotide polymorphism array analysis instead of routine karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with structural anomalies.
METHODS: Upon the detection of structural fetal anomalies, parents were offered a choice between QF-PCR and 250K single-nucleotide polymorphism array analysis (QF/array) or QF-PCR and routine karyotyping (QF/karyo).
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty fetal samples were included. In 153/220 cases (70%), QF/array analysis was requested. In 35/153 (23%), an abnormal QF-PCR result was found. The remaining samples were analyzed by array, which revealed clinically relevant aberrations, including two known microdeletions, in 5/118 cases. Inherited copy number variants were detected in 11/118 fetuses, copy number variants with uncertain clinical relevance in 3/118 and homozygous stretches in 2/118. In 67/220 (30%) fetuses, QF/karyo was requested: 23/67 (34%) were abnormal with QF-PCR, and in 3/67, an abnormal karyotype was found.
CONCLUSION: Even though QF/array does not reveal a high percentage of submicroscopic aberrations in fetuses with unselected structural anomalies, it is preferred over QF/karyo, as it provides a whole genome scan at high resolution, without additional tests needed and with a low chance on findings not related to the ultrasound anomalies.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22467167     DOI: 10.1002/pd.2948

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


  6 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.  Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.

Authors:  Sarah A Walser; Katherine S Kellom; Steven C Palmer; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Detection of two equine trisomies using SNP-CGH.

Authors:  Heather M Holl; Teri L Lear; Rose D Nolen-Walston; Joann Slack; Samantha A Brooks
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 2.957

4.  Best diagnostic approach for the genetic evaluation of fetuses after intrauterine death in first, second or third trimester: QF-PCR, karyotyping and/or genome wide SNP array analysis.

Authors:  Angelique Ja Kooper; Brigitte Hw Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Nicole de Leeuw; Dominique Fcm Smeets
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 2.009

5.  A Chinese multicenter retrospective study of isolated increased nuchal translucency associated chromosome anomaly and prenatal diagnostic suggestions.

Authors:  Hua Jin; Juan Wang; Guoying Zhang; Hongyan Jiao; Jiansheng Zhu; Zhimin Li; Chen Chen; XuanPing Zhang; Huan Huang; JiaYin Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gioia Mastromoro; Daniele Guadagnolo; Nader Khaleghi Hashemian; Enrica Marchionni; Alice Traversa; Antonio Pizzuti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.