Literature DB >> 31123319

Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies.

Lena Sagi-Dain1, Lital Cohen Vig2, Sarit Kahana3, Shiri Yacobson3, Tamar Tenne4, Ifat Agmon-Fishman3, Cochava Klein3, Reut Matar3, Lina Basel-Salmon3,5,6,7, Idit Maya3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray (CMA) in pregnancies with normal ultrasound.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis included all pregnancies with normal ultrasound undergoing CMA testing between the years 2010 and 2016. We calculated the rate of detection of clinically significant CMA findings in the whole cohort and according to various indications.
RESULTS: Of 5541 CMA analyses, clinically significant findings were yielded in 78 cases (1.4%). Of these, 31 (39.7%) variants could have theoretically been detected by karyotyping (e.g., sized above 10 Mb), and 28 (35.9%) by noninvasive prenatal screening aimed at five common aneuploidies. Of the 47 submicroscopic findings detectable by CMA only, the majority (37 cases, 78.7%) represented known recurrent syndromes. Detection of clinically significant CMA findings in women with no indication for invasive testing was 0.76% (21/2752), which was significantly lower compared with 1.8% in advanced maternal age group (41/2336), 2.8% in abnormal biochemical serum screening (6/211), and 4.1% (10/242) in fetuses with sonographic soft markers.
CONCLUSION: Clinically significant CMA aberrations are detected in 1 of 71 pregnancies with normal ultrasound, and in 1 of 131 women with no indication for invasive testing. Thus, CMA might be recommended a first-tier test in pregnancies with normal ultrasound.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chromosomal microarray analysis; karyotype; low-risk pregnancies; noninvasive prenatal screening; prenatal diagnosis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31123319     DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0550-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  1 in total

1.  Why 99% may not be as good as you think it is: limitations of screening for rare diseases.

Authors:  Monica A Lutgendorf; Katie A Stoll
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2015-07-16
  1 in total
  12 in total

1.  A study of normal copy number variations in Israeli population.

Authors:  Idit Maya; Pola Smirin-Yosef; Sarit Kahana; Sne Morag; Shiri Yacobson; Ifaat Agmon-Fishman; Reut Matar; Elisheva Bitton; Mordechai Shohat; Lina Basel-Salmon; Mali Salmon-Divon
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2020-09-27       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Exome sequencing for structurally normal fetuses-yields and ethical issues.

Authors:  Hagit Daum; Tamar Harel; Talya Millo; Avital Eilat; Duha Fahham; Shiri Gershon-Naamat; Adily Basal; Chaggai Rosenbluh; Nili Yanai; Shay Porat; Doron Kabiri; Simcha Yagel; Dan V Valsky; Orly Elpeleg; Vardiella Meiner; Hagar Mor-Shaked
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 5.351

3.  Is it time to report carrier state for recessive disorders in every microarray analysis?-A pilot model based on hearing loss genes deletions.

Authors:  Idit Maya; Lina Basel-Salmon; Lena Sagi-Dain
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 5.351

4.  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

5.  Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers.

Authors:  Meiying Cai; Na Lin; Xuemei Chen; Meimei Fu; Nan Guo; Liangpu Xu; Hailong Huang
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 3.063

6.  Clinical Application of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Pregnant Women with Advanced Maternal Age and Fetuses with Ultrasonographic Soft Markers.

Authors:  Zhu-Ming Hu; Lei-Lei Li; Han Zhang; Hong-Guo Zhang; Rui-Zhi Liu; Yang Yu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2021-04-10

7.  Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?

Authors:  Jing Wang; Xin-Xin Tang; Qin Zhou; Shuting Yang; Ye Shi; Bin Yu; Bin Zhang; Lei-Lei Wang
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2021-09-22

8.  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

9.  Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Pregnancies With Corpus Callosum or Posterior Fossa Anomalies.

Authors:  Lior Greenbaum; Idit Maya; Lena Sagi-Dain; Rivka Sukenik-Halevy; Michal Berkenstadt; Hagith Yonath; Shlomit Rienstein; Adel Shalata; Eldad Katorza; Amihood Singer
Journal:  Neurol Genet       Date:  2021-05-28

10.  The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  MengZhe Hao; LeiLei Li; Han Zhang; LinLin Li; Ruizhi Liu; Yang Yu
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2020-08-30       Impact factor: 3.124

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.