Literature DB >> 25504762

Benefits and burdens of using a SNP array in pregnancies at increased risk for the common aneuploidies.

Diane Van Opstal1, Femke de Vries, Lutgarde Govaerts, Marjan Boter, Debora Lont, Stefanie van Veen, Marieke Joosten, Karin Diderich, Robert-Jan Galjaard, Malgorzata I Srebniak.   

Abstract

We present the nature of pathogenic SNP array findings in pregnancies without ultrasound (US) abnormalities and show the additional diagnostic value of SNP array as compared with rapid aneuploidy detection and karyotyping. 1,330 prenatal samples were investigated with a 0.5-Mb SNP array after the exclusion of the most common aneuploidies. In 2.7% (36/1,330) of the cases, pathogenic chromosome aberrations were found; a microscopically detectable abnormality in 0.7% and a submicroscopic aberration in 2%. Our results show that in addition to the age- or screening-related aneuploidy risk, in pregnancies without US abnormalities, there is a risk of 1:148 (9/1,330) for a (sub)microscopic abnormality associated with an early-onset often severe disease, 1:222 (6/1,330) for a submicroscopic aberration causing an early-onset disease, 1:74 (18/1,330) for carrying a susceptibility locus for a neurodevelopmental disorder, and 1:443 (3/1,330) for a late-onset disorder (hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies in all three cases). These risk figures are important for adequate pretest counseling so that prospective parents can make informed individualized choices between targeted prenatal testing and broad testing with SNP array. Based on our results, we believe if invasive testing is performed, SNP array should be the preferred cytogenetic technique irrespective of the indication.
© 2014 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  RAD; VUS; advanced maternal age; amniotic fluid; chorionic villi; first trimester screening; prenatal SNP array; susceptibility loci; unexpected diagnoses; variable penetrance CNVs

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25504762     DOI: 10.1002/humu.22742

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mutat        ISSN: 1059-7794            Impact factor:   4.878


  17 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis.

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

3.  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 4.  Unrevealed mosaicism in the next-generation sequencing era.

Authors:  Marzena Gajecka
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 3.291

5.  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

6.  Chromosomal microarray analysis for pregnancies with abnormal maternal serum screening who undergo invasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Wu; Ying Li; Na Lin; Xiaorui Xie; Linjuan Su; Meiying Cai; Yuan Lin; Linshuo Wang; Meiying Wang; Liangpu Xu; Hailong Huang
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 5.310

7.  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

Review 8.  False Negative NIPT Results: Risk Figures for Chromosomes 13, 18 and 21 Based on Chorionic Villi Results in 5967 Cases and Literature Review.

Authors:  Diane Van Opstal; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Joke Polak; Femke de Vries; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marieke Joosten; Attie T J I Go; Maarten F C M Knapen; Cardi van den Berg; Karin E M Diderich; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents' Experiences.

Authors:  S L van der Steen; S R Riedijk; J Verhagen-Visser; L C P Govaerts; M I Srebniak; D Van Opstal; M Joosten; M F C M Knapen; A Tibben; K E M Diderich; R J H Galjaard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Choosing between Higher and Lower Resolution Microarrays: do Pregnant Women Have Sufficient Knowledge to Make Informed Choices Consistent with their Attitude?

Authors:  S L van der Steen; E M Bunnik; M G Polak; K E M Diderich; J Verhagen-Visser; L C P Govaerts; M Joosten; M F C M Knapen; A T J I Go; D Van Opstal; M I Srebniak; R J H Galjaard; A Tibben; S R Riedijk
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.