Prenatal diagnosis using combined quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis as a first‐line test: results from over 1000 consecutive cases
Open Access
- 8 February 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Vol. 41 (5) , 500-507
- https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12429
Abstract
Objectives First, to assess the performance of a prenatal diagnostic service using quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF‐PCR) and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) as first‐line investigations. Second, to determine the incidence of copy number variants (CNVs) by indication for testing, with particular reference to ultrasound and biochemical parameters measured in combined first‐trimester screening. Methods All patients undergoing invasive prenatal testing at a specialist prenatal screening service in Sydney, Australia, were included in the study. All samples underwent QF‐PCR and targeted aCGH. Results Of 1049 cases, CNVs were reported in 156 (14.9%). Preliminary QF‐PCR identified abnormalities in 104 of these cases. Of the remaining 52 cases, 20 could have been detected on karyotype testing, leaving 32 cases (3.1%) with CNVs only detectable by aCGH, of which 13 (1.2%) were pathogenic. Variants of unknown significance (VOUS) were seen in only three cases. Fetal structural abnormalities identified in the first trimester were the group most likely to be associated with pathogenic CNVs (11.8%). Conclusions Combining QF‐PCR and aCGH is an effective first‐tier prenatal testing regime that does not require conventional karyotyping. The incidence of VOUS in this study was very low owing to appropriate aCGH targeting and specific reporting criteria that reduced the number of potentially difficult counseling encounters. Pathogenic CNVs are positively correlated with the presence of fetal structural abnormalities, but not with enlarged nuchal translucency or abnormal first‐trimester serology results. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Chromosomal Microarray versus Karyotyping for Prenatal DiagnosisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Microarray comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis: a reviewUltrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2012
- Experience with microarray‐based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnanciesPrenatal Diagnosis, 2012
- Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testingPrenatal Diagnosis, 2012
- Identification of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and apparently normal karyotypeUltrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011
- aCGH on chorionic villi mirrors the complexity of fetoplacental mosaicism in prenatal diagnosisPrenatal Diagnosis, 2011
- Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: is conventional chromosome analysis necessary in the post‐array CGH era?Prenatal Diagnosis, 2011
- Applications of Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization in ObstetricsObstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 2010
- Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotypePrenatal Diagnosis, 2009
- High‐resolution array genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosisPrenatal Diagnosis, 2008