BACKGROUND: Genetic abnormalities have been associated with 6 to 13% of stillbirths, but the true prevalence may be higher. Unlike karyotype analysis, microarray analysis does not require live cells, and it detects small deletions and duplications called copy-number variants. METHODS: The Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network conducted a population-based study of stillbirth in five geographic catchment areas. Standardized postmortem examinations and karyotype analyses were performed. A single-nucleotide polymorphism array was used to detect copy-number variants of at least 500 kb in placental or fetal tissue. Variants that were not identified in any of three databases of apparently unaffected persons were then classified into three groups: probably benign, clinical significance unknown, or pathogenic. We compared the results of karyotype and microarray analyses of samples obtained after delivery. RESULTS: In our analysis of samples from 532 stillbirths, microarray analysis yielded results more often than did karyotype analysis (87.4% vs. 70.5%, P<0.001) and provided better detection of genetic abnormalities (aneuploidy or pathogenic copy-number variants, 8.3% vs. 5.8%; P=0.007). Microarray analysis also identified more genetic abnormalities among 443 antepartum stillbirths (8.8% vs. 6.5%, P=0.02) and 67 stillbirths with congenital anomalies (29.9% vs. 19.4%, P=0.008). As compared with karyotype analysis, microarray analysis provided a relative increase in the diagnosis of genetic abnormalities of 41.9% in all stillbirths, 34.5% in antepartum stillbirths, and 53.8% in stillbirths with anomalies. CONCLUSIONS: Microarray analysis is more likely than karyotype analysis to provide a genetic diagnosis, primarily because of its success with nonviable tissue, and is especially valuable in analyses of stillbirths with congenital anomalies or in cases in which karyotype results cannot be obtained. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.).
BACKGROUND:Genetic abnormalities have been associated with 6 to 13% of stillbirths, but the true prevalence may be higher. Unlike karyotype analysis, microarray analysis does not require live cells, and it detects small deletions and duplications called copy-number variants. METHODS: The Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network conducted a population-based study of stillbirth in five geographic catchment areas. Standardized postmortem examinations and karyotype analyses were performed. A single-nucleotide polymorphism array was used to detect copy-number variants of at least 500 kb in placental or fetal tissue. Variants that were not identified in any of three databases of apparently unaffected persons were then classified into three groups: probably benign, clinical significance unknown, or pathogenic. We compared the results of karyotype and microarray analyses of samples obtained after delivery. RESULTS: In our analysis of samples from 532 stillbirths, microarray analysis yielded results more often than did karyotype analysis (87.4% vs. 70.5%, P<0.001) and provided better detection of genetic abnormalities (aneuploidy or pathogenic copy-number variants, 8.3% vs. 5.8%; P=0.007). Microarray analysis also identified more genetic abnormalities among 443 antepartum stillbirths (8.8% vs. 6.5%, P=0.02) and 67 stillbirths with congenital anomalies (29.9% vs. 19.4%, P=0.008). As compared with karyotype analysis, microarray analysis provided a relative increase in the diagnosis of genetic abnormalities of 41.9% in all stillbirths, 34.5% in antepartum stillbirths, and 53.8% in stillbirths with anomalies. CONCLUSIONS: Microarray analysis is more likely than karyotype analysis to provide a genetic diagnosis, primarily because of its success with nonviable tissue, and is especially valuable in analyses of stillbirths with congenital anomalies or in cases in which karyotype results cannot be obtained. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.).
Authors: Jennifer E Warren; David K Turok; Teresa M Maxwell; Arthur R Brothman; Robert M Silver Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Halit Pinar; Matthew A Koch; Hal Hawkins; Josefine Heim-Hall; Carlos R Abramowsky; Vanessa R Thorsten; Marshall W Carpenter; Hong Holly Zhou; Uma M Reddy Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Corette B Parker; Carol J R Hogue; Matthew A Koch; Marian Willinger; Uma M Reddy; Vanessa R Thorsten; Donald J Dudley; Robert M Silver; Donald Coustan; George R Saade; Deborah Conway; Michael W Varner; Barbara Stoll; Halit Pinar; Radek Bukowski; Marshall Carpenter; Robert Goldenberg Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Halit Pinar; Matthew A Koch; Hal Hawkins; Josefine Heim-Hall; Bahig Shehata; Vanessa R Thorsten; Marshall Carpenter; Amy Lowichik; Uma M Reddy Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Joep de Ligt; Marjolein H Willemsen; Bregje W M van Bon; Tjitske Kleefstra; Helger G Yntema; Thessa Kroes; Anneke T Vulto-van Silfhout; David A Koolen; Petra de Vries; Christian Gilissen; Marisol del Rosario; Alexander Hoischen; Hans Scheffer; Bert B A de Vries; Han G Brunner; Joris A Veltman; Lisenka E L M Vissers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Santhosh Girirajan; Jill A Rosenfeld; Bradley P Coe; Sumit Parikh; Neil Friedman; Amy Goldstein; Robyn A Filipink; Juliann S McConnell; Brad Angle; Wendy S Meschino; Marjan M Nezarati; Alexander Asamoah; Kelly E Jackson; Gordon C Gowans; Judith A Martin; Erin P Carmany; David W Stockton; Rhonda E Schnur; Lynette S Penney; Donna M Martin; Salmo Raskin; Kathleen Leppig; Heidi Thiese; Rosemarie Smith; Erika Aberg; Dmitriy M Niyazov; Luis F Escobar; Dima El-Khechen; Kisha D Johnson; Robert R Lebel; Kiana Siefkas; Susie Ball; Natasha Shur; Marianne McGuire; Campbell K Brasington; J Edward Spence; Laura S Martin; Carol Clericuzio; Blake C Ballif; Lisa G Shaffer; Evan E Eichler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Miguel Verbitsky; Simone Sanna-Cherchi; David A Fasel; Brynn Levy; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Matthias Wuttke; Alison G Abraham; Frederick Kaskel; Anna Köttgen; Bradley A Warady; Susan L Furth; Craig S Wong; Ali G Gharavi Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Richard L Haspel; Randall J Olsen; Anna Berry; Charles E Hill; John D Pfeifer; Iris Schrijver; Karen L Kaul Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245