Literature DB >> 28556491

Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

M I Srebniak1, M Joosten1, M F C M Knapen2,3, L R Arends4,5, M Polak4, S van Veen1, A T J I Go2, D Van Opstal1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish, based on a systematic literature review, the frequency of pathogenic submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in fetuses that are not at increased risk for unbalanced structural chromosomal aberrations, with the aim of determining whether high-resolution testing for submicroscopic aberrations is beneficial in a general pregnant population.
METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically on 3 June 2016 for all relevant articles on the prevalence of pathogenic submicroscopic copy number variants (CNVs) in fetuses referred for prenatal invasive testing because of advanced maternal age (AMA) or parental anxiety (ANX). Relevant full-text articles were analyzed and the prevalence of submicroscopic CNVs was calculated based on the extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted in a pooled cohort of 10 614 fetuses based on the 10 largest studies (n > 300) of a total of 19 that were relevant.
RESULTS: Pooled estimate analysis indicated that 0.84% (95% CI, 0.55-1.30%) of fetuses that had invasive testing because of AMA/ANX carried a pathogenic clinically significant submicroscopic aberration. The onset/penetrance of submicroscopic findings was studied in 10 314 fetuses reported in eight papers that presented aberrant cases with all necessary details to allow assessment of the findings. The pooled estimates resulting from meta-analysis of the data indicated that an early-onset syndromic disorder was detected in 0.37% (95% CI, 0.27-0.52%) of cases, a susceptibility CNV was found in 0.30% (95% CI, 0.14-0.67%) and late-onset diseases were reported in 0.11% (95% CI, 0.05%-0.21%). The prevalence of early-onset syndromic disorders caused by a submicroscopic aberration was calculated to be 1:270. When the risk for submicroscopic aberrations is added to the individual risk for microscopic chromosomal aberrations, all pregnant women have a risk of higher than 1 in 180 for a relevant chromosomal aberration, and pregnant women under 36 years of age have a higher risk for submicroscopic pathogenic aberrations than for Down syndrome.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that a significant proportion of fetuses in a general pregnant population carry a submicroscopic pathogenic CNV. Based on these figures, all women should be informed on their individual risk for all pathogenic chromosomal aberrations and not only for common trisomies.
Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CNV; array; background risk; prenatal diagnosis; review; submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28556491     DOI: 10.1002/uog.17533

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis.

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

2.  Clinical impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing: Follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study.

Authors:  Lisanne van Prooyen Schuurman; Erik A Sistermans; Diane Van Opstal; Lidewij Henneman; Mireille N Bekker; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Katelijne Bouman; Sonja de Munnik; Nicolette S den Hollander; Karin E M Diderich; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Attie T J I Go; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Marieke Joosten; Fenne L Komdeur; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Maria P Lombardi; Marike G Polak; Fernanda S Jehee; Heleen Schuring-Blom; Servi J C Stevens; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; Karuna R M van der Meij; Merel C van Maarle; Vivian Vernimmen; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Maarten F C M Knapen; Merryn V E Macville; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 11.043

3.  Clinical re-biopsy of segmental gains-the primary source of preimplantation genetic testing false positives.

Authors:  Steve Grkovic; Maria V Traversa; Mark Livingstone; Steven J McArthur
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Postpartum women's attitudes to disclosure of adult-onset conditions in pregnancy.

Authors:  Vitalia Libman; Michal Macarov; Yechiel Friedlander; Sidra Goldman-Mellor; Salomon Israel; Drorith Hochner-Celnikier; Yishai Sompolinsky; Uri Pinchas Dior; Michael Osovsky; Lina Basel-Salmon; Arnon Wiznitzer; Yehuda Neumark; Vardiella Meiner; Ayala Frumkin; Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Hagit Hochner
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.242

5.  Offering pregnant women different levels of genetic information from prenatal chromosome microarray: a prospective study.

Authors:  Jane L Halliday; Cecile Muller; Taryn Charles; Fiona Norris; Joanne Kennedy; Sharon Lewis; Bettina Meiser; Susan Donath; Zornitza Stark; George McGillivray; Melody Menezes; Sian K Smith; Della Forster; Susan Walker; Mark Pertile; David J Amor
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Utility of noninvasive genome-wide screening: a prospective cohort of obstetric patients undergoing diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Stephanie Guseh; Louise Wilkins-Haug; Anjali Kaimal; Lisa Dunn-Albanese; Sophie Adams; Sarah Carroll; Marie Discenza; Lori Dobson; Marney Brillinger; Judith Foster; Samantha Gbur; Hayley Green; Nancy Herrig; Chelsea Mandigo; Michelle Pacione; Penelope Roberts; Abigail Sassaman; Kathleen Steinberg; Courtney Studwell; Kathryn J Gray
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Nuchal translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an indication for NIPT or microarray? Cohort analysis and literature review.

Authors:  Olav B Petersen; Eric Smith; Diane Van Opstal; Marike Polak; Maarten F C M Knapen; Karin E M Diderich; Caterina M Bilardo; Lidia R Arends; Ida Vogel; Malgorzata I Srebniak
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.636

8.  A Retrospective Analysis of 10-Year Data Assessed the Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficacy of Cytogenomic Abnormalities in Current Prenatal and Pediatric Settings.

Authors:  Hongyan Chai; Autumn DiAdamo; Brittany Grommisch; Fang Xu; Qinghua Zhou; Jiadi Wen; Maurice Mahoney; Allen Bale; James McGrath; Michele Spencer-Manzon; Peining Li; Hui Zhang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 4.599

9.  Chromosomal microarray analysis for pregnancies with or without ultrasound abnormalities in women of advanced maternal age.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Wu; Gang An; Xiaorui Xie; Linjuan Su; Meiying Cai; Xuemei Chen; Ying Li; Na Lin; Deqin He; Meiying Wang; Hailong Huang; Liangpu Xu
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2019-11-24       Impact factor: 2.352

10.  Social and medical need for whole genome high resolution NIPT.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Maarten F C M Knapen; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marike Polak; Marieke Joosten; Karin E M Diderich; Laura J C M van Zutven; Krista A K E Prinsen; Sam Riedijk; Attie T J I Go; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Lies H Hoefsloot; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 2.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.