Literature DB >> 23512800

Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis.

S C Hillman1, D J McMullan, G Hall, F S Togneri, N James, E J Maher, C H Meller, D Williams, R J Wapner, E R Maher, M D Kilby.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is utilized in prenatal diagnosis to detect chromosomal abnormalities not visible by conventional karyotyping. A prospective cohort of women undergoing fetal CMA and karyotyping following abnormal prenatal ultrasound findings is presented in the context of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature describing detection rates by CMA and karyotyping.
METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of 243 women undergoing CMA alongside karyotyping when a structural abnormality was detected on prenatal ultrasound. A systematic review of the literature was also performed. MEDLINE (1970-Dec 2012), EMBASE (1980-Dec 2012) and CINAHL (1982-June 2012) databases were searched electronically. Selected studies included > 10 cases and prenatal CMA in addition to karyotyping. The search yielded 560 citations. Full papers were retrieved for 86, and 25 primary studies were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS: Our cohort study found an excess detection rate of abnormalities by CMA of 4.1% over conventional karyotyping when the clinical indication for testing was an abnormal fetal ultrasound finding; this was lower than the detection rate of 10% (95% CI, 8-13%) by meta-analysis. The rate of detection for variants of unknown significance (VOUS) was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.3-3.3%) when the indication for CMA was an abnormal scan finding. The VOUS detection rate was lower (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.5-3.7%) when any indication for prenatal CMA was meta-analyzed.
CONCLUSION: We present evidence for a higher detection rate by CMA than by karyotyping not just in the case of abnormal ultrasound findings but also in cases of other indications for invasive testing. It is likely that CMA will replace karyotyping in high-risk pregnancies.
Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23512800     DOI: 10.1002/uog.12464

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


  61 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.  Impacts of variants of uncertain significance on parental perceptions of children after prenatal chromosome microarray testing.

Authors:  Preeya Desai; Hannah Haber; Jessica Bulafka; Amita Russell; Rebecca Clifton; Julia Zachary; Seonjoo Lee; Tianshu Feng; Ronald Wapner; Catherine Monk; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Genetic and expression changes in TNF-α as a risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis in northeast India.

Authors:  Somdatta Das; Chitralekha Baruah; Anjan Kumar Saikia; Diptika Tiwari; Sujoy Bose
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.166

4.  A population-based study of prevalence of Down syndrome in Southern Thailand.

Authors:  Somchit Jaruratanasirikul; Ounjai Kor-Anantakul; Montira Chowvichian; Wannee Limpitikul; Pathikan Dissaneevate; Nitthakarn Intharasangkanawin; Atchara Sattapanyo; Sermsri Pathompanitrat; H Sriplung
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.764

5.  Utility of chromosomal microarray in anomalous fetuses.

Authors:  Jacqueline G Parchem; Teresa N Sparks; Kristen Gosnell; Mary E Norton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.050

6.  Exploring the Issues Surrounding Clinical Exome Sequencing in the Prenatal Setting.

Authors:  Swetha Narayanan; Bruce Blumberg; Marla L Clayman; Vivian Pan; Catherine Wicklund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis.

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

8.  Pregnant Genetic Counselors in an Era of Advanced Genomic Tests: What Do the Experts Test Prenatally?

Authors:  Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Yael Hashiloni-Dolev
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  Genome-Wide Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Fetal Single-Gene Disorders.

Authors:  Ignatia B van den Veyver; Christine M Eng
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 6.915

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.