Shen Gu1,2, Madison Jernegan3, Ignatia B Van den Veyver2,4, Sandra Peacock1, Janice Smith1,2, Amy Breman1,2. 1. Baylor Genetics Laboratories, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Nursing, Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College, Miami, Oklahoma. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish the incidence and implications of confined placental mosaicism (CPM) in the context of prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prenatal array data on 1382 consecutive chorionic villus sampling (CVS) specimens spanning the past 6 years, focusing on those for which whole CVS biopsy (both cytotrophoblast and mesenchymal cells) was used for CMA and cultured cells (primarily mesenchyme) was also analyzed or amniotic fluid (AF)/newborn blood was used for confirmation, to determine the frequency of mosaic abnormal findings that were the result of CPM. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1382 consecutive CVS cases, we identified 42 (42/1382 = 3.0%) cases with abnormal array findings suggestive of mosaicism. Among them, 10 cases were unequivocally interpreted as CPM based on a normal AF/newborn blood confirmatory result. In addition, another 10 cases were interpreted as provisional CPM based on normal results on cultured cells. Notably, 40% (8/20) of the cases revealed complex findings, including multiple mosaic aneuploidies, mosaic submicroscopic copy number variation (CNV), and mosaic aneuploidy plus mosaic CNV. CONCLUSION: Abnormal CMA results from CVS specimens should be interpreted with caution when mosaicism is evident or suspected. Furthermore, confirmatory testing on amniotic fluid, which contains cells derived from the fetus, is recommended in these cases.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish the incidence and implications of confined placental mosaicism (CPM) in the context of prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prenatal array data on 1382 consecutive chorionic villus sampling (CVS) specimens spanning the past 6 years, focusing on those for which whole CVS biopsy (both cytotrophoblast and mesenchymal cells) was used for CMA and cultured cells (primarily mesenchyme) was also analyzed or amniotic fluid (AF)/newborn blood was used for confirmation, to determine the frequency of mosaic abnormal findings that were the result of CPM. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1382 consecutive CVS cases, we identified 42 (42/1382 = 3.0%) cases with abnormal array findings suggestive of mosaicism. Among them, 10 cases were unequivocally interpreted as CPM based on a normal AF/newborn blood confirmatory result. In addition, another 10 cases were interpreted as provisional CPM based on normal results on cultured cells. Notably, 40% (8/20) of the cases revealed complex findings, including multiple mosaic aneuploidies, mosaic submicroscopic copy number variation (CNV), and mosaic aneuploidy plus mosaic CNV. CONCLUSION: Abnormal CMA results from CVS specimens should be interpreted with caution when mosaicism is evident or suspected. Furthermore, confirmatory testing on amniotic fluid, which contains cells derived from the fetus, is recommended in these cases.