Benefit versus risk of chromosomal microarray analysis performed in pregnancies with normal and positive prenatal screening results: A retrospective study

被引:5
作者
Moshonov, Rami [1 ]
Hod, Keren [2 ]
Azaria, Bella [3 ]
Abadi-Korek, Ifat [2 ]
Berger, Rachel [4 ]
Shohat, Mordechai [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Ben Gurion Univ Negev, Assuta Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Tel Aviv, Israel
[2] Ben Gurion Univ Negev, Assuta Med Ctr, Dept Acad & Res, Tel Aviv, Israel
[3] Ben Gurion Univ Negev, Assuta Med Ctr, Div Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
[4] Maccabi Hlth Med Org, Genet Inst, Rehovot, Israel
[5] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Sch Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
来源
PLOS ONE | 2021年 / 16卷 / 04期
关键词
COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; AMNIOCENTESIS; MULTICENTER; TRISOMY-21; DIAGNOSIS; UTILITY; WOMEN; ARRAY;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0250734
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background Most studies on chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and amniocentesis risks have not evaluated pregnancies with low risk for genetic diseases; therefore, the efficacy and safety of CMA and amniocentesis in this population are unclear. This study aimed to examine the benefits and risks of prenatal genetic diagnostic tests in pregnancies having low risk for chromosomal diseases. Methods and findings In this retrospective study, we used clinical data from a large database of 30,830 singleton pregnancies at gestational age 16-23 weeks who underwent amniocentesis for karyotyping with or without CMA. We collected socio-demographic, medical and obstetric information, along with prenatal screening, CMA and karyotyping results. Fetal loss events were also analysed. CMA was performed in 5,837 pregnancies with normal karyotype (CMA cohort). In this cohort, 4,174 women had normal prenatal screening results and the risk for identifying genetic abnormalities with >10% risk for intellectual disability by CMA was 1:102, with no significant difference between maternal age groups. The overall post-amniocentesis fetal loss rate was 1:1,401 for the entire cohort (n = 30,830) and 1:1,945 for the CMA cohort (n = 5,837). The main limitation of this study is the relatively short follow-up of 3 weeks, which may not have been sufficient for detecting all fetal loss events. Conclusion The low risk for post-amniocentesis fetal loss, compared to the rate of severe genetic abnormalities detected by CMA, suggests that even pregnant women with normal prenatal screening results should consider amniocentesis with CMA.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Akolekar, R.
    Beta, J.
    Picciarelli, G.
    Ogilvie, C.
    D'Antonio, F.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 45 (01) : 16 - 26
  • [2] Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis
    Alfirevic, Zarko
    Navaratnam, Kate
    Mujezinovic, Faris
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, (09):
  • [3] First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening
    Alldred, S. Kate
    Takwoingi, Yemisi
    Guo, Boliang
    Pennant, Mary
    Deeks, Jonathan J.
    Neilson, James P.
    Alfirevic, Zarko
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, (03):
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2016, OBSTET GYNECOL, V128, pE262
  • [5] Batzir NA, 2015, PEDIATR ENDOCR REV P, V13, P448
  • [6] Universal Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis: Additive Value and Clinical Dilemmas in Fetuses with a Normal Karyotype
    Bornstein, Eran
    Berger, Sharon
    Cheung, Sau W.
    Maliszewski, Kristen T.
    Patel, Ankita
    Pursley, Amber N.
    Lenchner, Erez
    Bacino, Carlos
    Beaudet, Arthur L.
    Divon, Michael Y.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2017, 34 (04) : 340 - 348
  • [7] The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature
    Callaway, Jonathan L. A.
    Shaffer, Lisa G.
    Chitty, Lyn S.
    Rosenfeld, Jill A.
    Crolla, John A.
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2013, 33 (12) : 1119 - 1123
  • [8] Genetics Update on Prenatal Screening and Diagnosis
    Evans, Mark I.
    Andriole, Stephanie
    Evans, Shara M.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2015, 42 (02) : 193 - +
  • [9] Advances in genetic prenatal diagnosis and screening
    Hardisty, Emily E.
    Vora, Neeta L.
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN PEDIATRICS, 2014, 26 (06) : 634 - 638
  • [10] 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