Literature DB >> 24664552

An economic analysis of prenatal cytogenetic technologies for sonographically detected fetal anomalies.

Lorie M Harper1, Amelia L M Sutton, Ryan E Longman, Anthony O Odibo.   

Abstract

When congenital anomalies are diagnosed on prenatal ultrasound, the current standard of care is to perform G-banded karyotyping on cultured amniotic cells. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) can detect smaller genomic deletions and duplications than traditional karyotype analysis. CMA is the first-tier test in the postnatal evaluation of children with multiple congenital anomalies. Recent studies have demonstrated the utility of CMA in the prenatal setting and have advocated for widespread implementation of this technology as the preferred test in prenatal diagnosis. However, CMA remains significantly more expensive than karyotype. In this study, we performed an economic analysis of cytogenetic technologies in the prenatal diagnosis of sonographically detected fetal anomalies comparing four strategies: (i) karyotype alone, (ii) CMA alone, (iii) karyotype and CMA, and (iv) karyotype followed by CMA if the karyotype was normal. In a theoretical cohort of 1,000 patients, CMA alone and karyotype followed by CMA if the karyotype was normal identified a similar number of chromosomal abnormalities. In this model, CMA alone was the most cost-effective strategy, although karyotype alone and CMA following a normal karyotype are both acceptable alternatives. This study supports the clinical utility of CMA in the prenatal diagnosis of sonographically detected fetal anomalies.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH); chromosomal microarray (CMA); congenital anomalies; cost-effectiveness analysis; ultrasonic prenatal diagnosis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24664552      PMCID: PMC4251870          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  33 in total

1.  Diagnostic utility of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in a prenatal setting.

Authors:  Idit Maya; Bella Davidov; Liron Gershovitz; Yael Zalzstein; Ellen Taub; Justine Coppinger; Lisa G Shaffer; Mordechai Shohat
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  High resolution array analysis: diagnosing pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings.

Authors:  M Tyreman; K M Abbott; L R Willatt; R Nash; C Lees; J Whittaker; I Simonic
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 3.  Copy number and SNP arrays in clinical diagnostics.

Authors:  Christian P Schaaf; Joanna Wiszniewska; Arthur L Beaudet
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability.

Authors:  Dean A Regier; Jan M Friedman; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genomic hybridisation in fetuses with multiple malformations.

Authors:  C Le Caignec; M Boceno; P Saugier-Veber; S Jacquemont; M Joubert; A David; T Frebourg; J M Rival
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 6.  Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies.

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

7.  Application of a target array comparative genomic hybridization to prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Ji Hyeon Park; Jung Hoon Woo; Sung Han Shim; Song-Ju Yang; Young Min Choi; Kap-Seok Yang; Dong Hyun Cha
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 2.103

8.  Fetal ultrasound abnormalities: correlation with fetal karyotype, autopsy findings, and postnatal outcome--five-year prospective study.

Authors:  R D Wilson; D Chitayat; B C McGillivray
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1992-11-15

9.  Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  Trilochan Sahoo; Sau Wai Cheung; Patricia Ward; Sandra Darilek; Ankita Patel; Daniela del Gaudio; Sung Hae L Kang; Seema R Lalani; Jiangzhen Li; Sallie McAdoo; Audrey Burke; Chad A Shaw; Pawel Stankiewicz; A Craig Chinault; Ignatia B Van den Veyver; Benjamin B Roa; Arthur L Beaudet; Christine M Eng
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies.

Authors:  Lisa G Shaffer; Mindy P Dabell; Allan J Fisher; Justine Coppinger; Anne M Bandholz; Jay W Ellison; J Britt Ravnan; Beth S Torchia; Blake C Ballif; Jill A Rosenfeld
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 3.050

View more
  5 in total

1.  Implementing a Protocol to Optimize Detection of Chromosome Abnormalities in Cases of Miscarriage or Stillbirth at a Midwestern Teaching Hospital.

Authors:  Shobana Kubendran; Jennifer Duong; Fanglong Dong; Amy Lueking; Darren Farley
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2018

2.  BACs-on-Beads Assay for the Prenatal Diagnosis of Microdeletion and Microduplication Syndromes.

Authors:  Chunyan Li; Jianfang Zhang; Jia Li; Guyuan Qiao; Ying Zhan; Ying Xu; Hong Yang
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 4.074

3.  ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient?

Authors:  Sara B Hay; Trilochan Sahoo; Mary K Travis; Karine Hovanes; Natasa Dzidic; Charles Doherty; Michelle N Strecker
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Prenatal diagnosis: the clinical usefulness of array comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  Marta Freitas; Joel Pinto; Carla Ramalho; Sofia Dória
Journal:  Porto Biomed J       Date:  2018-07-03

5.  Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Genetic Abnormalities in Fetal Ultrasound Anomalies: An Economic Evaluation.

Authors:  Shahela S Kodabuckus; Elizabeth Quinlan-Jones; Dominic J McMullan; Eamonn R Maher; Matthew E Hurles; Pelham M Barton; Mark D Kilby
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 2.587

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.