Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosome Abnormalities: A 13-Year Institution Experience

被引:3
作者
Comas, Carmen [1 ]
Echevarria, Monica [1 ]
Rodriguez, Maria Angeles [1 ]
Rodriguez, Ignacio [1 ]
Serra, Bernat [1 ]
Cirigliano, Vincenzo [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Dexeus, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Fetal Med Unit, Gran Via Carles III,71-75, Barcelona 08028, Spain
[2] LABCO Diagnost, Mol Genet, Barcelona 08029, Spain
来源
DIAGNOSTICS | 2012年 / 2卷 / 04期
关键词
screening; prenatal invasive test; chromosome abnormality; down syndrome;
D O I
10.3390/diagnostics2040057
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To analyze trends in screening and invasive prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities (CA) over a 13-year period and correlate them to changes in the national prenatal screening policy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed Down syndrome (DS) screening tests and fetal karyotypes obtained by prenatal invasive testing (IT) in our fetal medicine unit between January 1999 and December 2011. Results: A total of 24,226 prenatal screening tests for DS and 11,045 invasive procedures have been analyzed. Over a 13-year period, utilization of non-invasive screening methods has significantly increased from 57% to 89%. The percentage of invasive procedures has declined from 49% to 12%, although the percentage of IT performed for maternal anxiety has increased from 22% to 55%. The percentage of detected CA increased from 2.5% to 5.9%. Overall, 31 invasive procedures are needed to diagnose 1 abnormal case, being 23 procedures in medical indications and 241 procedures in non-medical indications. Conclusions: Our experience on screening and invasive prenatal diagnostic practice shows a decrease of the number of IT, with a parallel decline in medical indications. There is an increasing efficiency of prenatal screening program to detect CA. Despite the increasing screening policies, our population shows a growing request for prenatal IT. The a priori low risk population shows a not negligible residual risk for relevant CA. This observation challenges the current prenatal screening strategy focused on DS; showing that the residual risk is higher than the current cut-off used to indicate an invasive technique.
引用
收藏
页码:57 / 71
页数:15
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis
    Armengol, Lluis
    Nevado, Julian
    Serra-Juhe, Clara
    Plaja, Alberto
    Mediano, Carmen
    Amalia Garcia-Santiago, Fe
    Garcia-Aragones, Manel
    Villa, Olaya
    Mansilla, Elena
    Preciado, Cristina
    Fernandez, Luis
    Angeles Mori, Maria
    Garcia-Perez, Lidia
    Daniel Lapunzina, Pablo
    Alberto Perez-Jurado, Luis
    [J]. HUMAN GENETICS, 2012, 131 (03) : 513 - 523
  • [2] First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 combining biochemistry and ultrasound at individually optimal gestational ages. An interventional study
    Borrell, A
    Casais, E
    Fortuny, A
    Farre, MT
    Gonce, A
    Sanchez, A
    Soler, A
    Cararach, C
    Vanrell, JA
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2004, 24 (07) : 541 - 545
  • [3] Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and review of the literature
    Breman, Amy
    Pursley, Amber N.
    Hixson, Patricia
    Bi, Weimin
    Ward, Patricia
    Bacino, Carlos A.
    Shaw, Chad
    Lupski, James R.
    Beaudet, Arthur
    Patel, Ankita
    Cheung, Sau W.
    Van den Veyver, Ignatia
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2012, 32 (04) : 351 - 361
  • [4] Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study
    Chiu, Rossa W. K.
    Akolekar, Ranjit
    Zheng, Yama W. L.
    Leung, Tak Y.
    Sun, Hao
    Chan, K. C. Allen
    Lun, Fiona M. F.
    Go, Attie T. J. I.
    Lau, Elizabeth T.
    To, William W. K.
    Leung, Wing C.
    Tang, Rebecca Y. K.
    Au-Yeung, Sidney K. C.
    Lam, Helena
    Kung, Yu Y.
    Zhang, Xiuqing
    van Vugt, John M. G.
    Minekawa, Ryoko
    Tang, Mary H. Y.
    Wang, Jun
    Oudejans, Cees B. M.
    Lau, Tze K.
    Nicolaides, Kypros H.
    Lo, Y. M. Dennis
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 342 : 217
  • [5] Christian SM, 2000, PRENATAL DIAG, V20, P37
  • [6] Cigudosa JC., 2012, DIAGN PRENAT, V23, P49
  • [7] Comas Gabriel C., 2011, PRENATAL DIAG, V22, P117
  • [8] Ekelund CK, 2008, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V337, DOI 10.1136/bmj.a2547
  • [9] Fiorentino F, 2012, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V39, P601, DOI 10.1002/uog.11158
  • [10] Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases
    Fiorentino, Francesco
    Caiazzo, Fiorina
    Napolitano, Stefania
    Spizzichino, Letizia
    Bono, Sara
    Sessa, Mariateresa
    Nuccitelli, Andrea
    Biricik, Anil
    Gordon, Anthony
    Rizzo, Giuseppe
    Baldi, Marina
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2011, 31 (13) : 1270 - 1282