How does altering the resolution of chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal setting affect the rates of pathological and uncertain findings?

被引:19
作者
Hillman, S. C. [1 ]
McMullan, D. J. [2 ,3 ]
Silcock, L. [2 ,3 ]
Maher, E. R. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Kilby, M. D. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Sch Clin & Expt Med, Coll Med & Dent Sci, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
[2] Birmingham Womens Fdn Trust, West Midlands Reg Genet Labs, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[3] Birmingham Womens Fdn Trust, Dept Clin Genet, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[4] Birmingham Womens Fdn Trust, Fetal Med Ctr, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
关键词
Abnormal ultrasound scan; array CGH; prenatal diagnosis; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.3109/14767058.2013.825601
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) has a higher detection rate of pathogenic chromosome abnormalities over conventional (G-band) karyotyping. The optimum resolution of CMA in the prenatal setting remains debatable. Our objective was to determine if an increased detection rate was obtained by performing differing resolution of CMA on the same fetal samples and whether this resulted in an increase in variants of uncertain clinical significance (VOUS). Methods: Sixty-two fetal cases initially underwent a 1Mb targeted BAC microarray within a clinical diagnostic setting in addition to conventional karyotyping. At the conclusion of pregnancy, a higher resolution 60 K oligonucleotide microarray was performed. Results: The 1Mb BAC analysis demonstrated a detection rate of pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) in 4.1% (95% CI 2.1-7.6) of cases and a variation of unknown significance (VOUS) rate of 0.4% (95% CI 0.07-2.2) over conventional G-band karyotyping. The 60 K array had an additional pathogenic detection rate of 4.8% (95% CI 1.6-13.3) over the BAC array but also detected an additional 8% (95% CI 1.3-14.8) VOUS. Conclusion: As the CMA platform resolution increases detection rates increase but are associated with an increase in VOUS rates. Our findings support the need for further large scale studies to inform the national consensus on the resolution required and on reporting of VOUS in the antenatal setting.
引用
收藏
页码:649 / 657
页数:9
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results
    Bernhardt, Barbara A.
    Soucier, Danielle
    Hanson, Karen
    Savage, Melissa S.
    Jackson, Laird
    Wapner, Ronald J.
    [J]. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 15 (02) : 139 - 145
  • [2] OROFACIODIGITAL SYNDROME TYPE-I ASSOCIATED WITH POLYCYSTIC KIDNEYS AND AGENESIS OF THE CORPUS-CALLOSUM
    CONNACHER, AA
    FORSYTH, CC
    STEWART, WK
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 1987, 24 (02) : 116 - 118
  • [3] Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray
    Coppinger, Justine
    Alliman, Sarah
    Lamb, Allen N.
    Torchia, Beth S.
    Bejjani, Bassem A.
    Shaffer, Lisa G.
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2009, 29 (12) : 1156 - 1166
  • [4] Whole-genome array CGH identifies pathogenic copy number variations in fetuses with major malformations and a normal karyotype
    D'Amours, G.
    Kibar, Z.
    Mathonnet, G.
    Fetni, R.
    Tihy, F.
    Desilets, V.
    Nizard, S.
    Michaud, J. L.
    Lemyre, E.
    [J]. CLINICAL GENETICS, 2012, 81 (02) : 128 - 141
  • [5] Whole Gene Duplication of the PQBP1 Gene in Syndrome Resembling Renpenning
    Flynn, Maureen
    Zou, Ying S.
    Milunsky, Aubrey
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A, 2011, 155A (01) : 141 - 144
  • [6] Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis
    Hillman, S. C.
    McMullan, D. J.
    Hall, G.
    Togneri, F. S.
    James, N.
    Maher, E. J.
    Meller, C. H.
    Williams, D.
    Wapner, R. J.
    Maher, E. R.
    Kilby, M. D.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 41 (06) : 610 - 620
  • [7] Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Hillman, S. C.
    Pretlove, S.
    Coomarasamy, A.
    McMullan, D. J.
    Davison, E. V.
    Maher, E. R.
    Kilby, M. D.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 37 (01) : 6 - 14
  • [8] "If it helps..." the use of microarray technology in prenatal testing: Patient and partners reflections
    Hillman, Sarah C.
    Skelton, John
    Quinlan-Jones, Elizabeth
    Wilson, Amie
    Kilby, Mark D.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A, 2013, 161A (07) : 1619 - 1627
  • [9] American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants
    Kearney, Hutton M.
    Thorland, Erik C.
    Brown, Kerry K.
    Quintero-Rivera, Fabiola
    South, Sarah T.
    [J]. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 13 (07) : 680 - 685
  • [10] Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype
    Kleeman, Linda
    Bianchi, Diana W.
    Shaffer, Lisa G.
    Rorem, Emily
    Cowan, Janet
    Craigo, Sabrina D.
    Tighiouart, Hocine
    Wilkins-Haug, Louise E.
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2009, 29 (13) : 1213 - 1217