Literature DB >> 23401365

Prenatal diagnosis using combined quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis as a first-line test: results from over 1000 consecutive cases.

F Scott1, K Murphy, L Carey, W Greville, N Mansfield, P Barahona, R Robertson, A McLennan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: First, to assess the performance of a prenatal diagnostic service using quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) as first-line investigations. Second, to determine the incidence of copy number variants (CNVs) by indication for testing, with particular reference to ultrasound and biochemical parameters measured in combined first-trimester screening.
METHODS: All patients undergoing invasive prenatal testing at a specialist prenatal screening service in Sydney, Australia, were included in the study. All samples underwent QF-PCR and targeted aCGH.
RESULTS: Of 1049 cases, CNVs were reported in 156 (14.9%). Preliminary QF-PCR identified abnormalities in 104 of these cases. Of the remaining 52 cases, 20 could have been detected on karyotype testing, leaving 32 cases (3.1%) with CNVs only detectable by aCGH, of which 13 (1.2%) were pathogenic. Variants of unknown significance (VOUS) were seen in only three cases. Fetal structural abnormalities identified in the first trimester were the group most likely to be associated with pathogenic CNVs (11.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Combining QF-PCR and aCGH is an effective first-tier prenatal testing regime that does not require conventional karyotyping. The incidence of VOUS in this study was very low owing to appropriate aCGH targeting and specific reporting criteria that reduced the number of potentially difficult counseling encounters. Pathogenic CNVs are positively correlated with the presence of fetal structural abnormalities, but not with enlarged nuchal translucency or abnormal first-trimester serology results.
Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23401365     DOI: 10.1002/uog.12429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  12 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Prenatal Diagnostic Value of Chromosomal Microarray in Fetuses with Nuchal Translucency Greater than 2.5 mm.

Authors:  Zhu Zhang; Ting Hu; Jiamin Wang; Qinqin Li; He Wang; Shanling Liu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Prenatal SNP array testing in 1000 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: causative, unexpected and susceptibility CNVs.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Karin Em Diderich; Marieke Joosten; Lutgarde Cp Govaerts; Jeroen Knijnenburg; Femke At de Vries; Marjan Boter; Debora Lont; Maarten Fcm Knapen; Merel C de Wit; Attie Tji Go; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 5.  Delineating the 15q13.3 microdeletion phenotype: a case series and comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Chelsea Lowther; Gregory Costain; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Rebecca Melvin; Candice K Silversides; Danielle M Andrade; Joyce So; Hanna Faghfoury; Anath C Lionel; Christian R Marshall; Stephen W Scherer; Anne S Bassett
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Whole-genome array CGH evaluation for replacing prenatal karyotyping in Hong Kong.

Authors:  Anita S Y Kan; Elizabeth T Lau; W F Tang; Sario S Y Chan; Simon C K Ding; Kelvin Y K Chan; C P Lee; Pui Wah Hui; Brian H Y Chung; K Y Leung; Teresa Ma; Wing C Leung; Mary H Y Tang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Is prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis with genomic array indicated in pregnancies at risk for a molecular or metabolic disorder?

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Karin E M Diderich; Marieke Joosten; Femke A T de Vries; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Prenatal diagnosis of a 46,XX male following noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Nerida Mansfield; Tom Boogert; Andrew McLennan
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2015-09-03

9.  Enlarged NT (≥3.5 mm) in the first trimester - not all chromosome aberrations can be detected by NIPT.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Merel C de Wit; Karin E M Diderich; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marieke Joosten; Maarten F C M Knapen; Marnix J Bos; Gerda A G Looye-Bruinsma; Mieke Koningen; Attie T J I Go; Robert Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 2.009

10.  What results to disclose, when, and who decides? Healthcare professionals' views on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis.

Authors:  Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Angela Fenwick; Sandi Dheensa; Diana Wellesley; Anneke M Lucassen
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 3.050

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.