scholarly journals Application of Chromosome Microarray Analysis and Karyotype Analysis in Diagnostic Assessment of Abnormal Down's Syndrome Screening Results

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Kang ◽  
Lingxi Wang ◽  
Xingyu Li ◽  
Chonglan Gao ◽  
Yamei Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Microarray Analysis ◽  
Sex Chromosome ◽  
Karyotype Analysis ◽  
Down's Syndrome ◽  
Down’S Syndrome ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis ◽  
Balanced Translocation

Abstract Background: Although screening for fetal aneuploidy with the use of cell-free DNA obtained from maternal plasma is highly effective, biomarkers screening is in extensive use in economically underdeveloped areas and poor population. This study aims to explore the application value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotype analysis in prenatal diagnosis for pregnant women with abnormal Down’s syndrome (DS) screening results.Methods: The study recruited 813 pregnant women with abnormal DS screening results from Chengdu Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital. They underwent amniocentesis to obtain fetal amniotic fluid for CMA and G-band karyotype analysis. An Affymetrix CytoScan 750 K Array chip was used for CMA analysis according to the manufacturer’s instructions.Results: In total, CMA identified 21/813 abnormal results, which was more efficient than karyotype analysis(10/813, P<0.001.) CMA is equivalent to traditional karyotype analysis for the prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies. However, CMA identified 1.60% more copy number variants(CNVs) than karyotype analysis. These pathogenic/likely pathogenic(P/LP) CNVs ranged from 159Kb deletion to 3616Kb deletion. 53.8% of them were recurrent pathogenic CNVs associated with risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. CMA identified 7 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) results, including 6 microduplication and 1 microdeletion, with the size ranged from 840kb-1484kb. Karyotype analysis identified 2 mosaic sex chromosome aneuploidy, 2 balanced translocation and 1 mosaic balanced translocation, which could not be identified by CMA. Conclusions: Performing both CMA and karyotype analysis simultaneously is more beneficial to pregnant women with abnormal DS screening results.

scholarly journals The Genetic Etiology Diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction Using Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism-Based Chromosomal Microarray Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu'e Chen ◽  
Yingjun Xie ◽  
Yuying Jiang ◽  
Qi Luo ◽  
Lijing Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Microarray Analysis ◽  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Fetal Growth Restriction ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽  
Karyotype Analysis ◽  
Growth Restriction ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis

Background: An increase in pathogenic copy number variants (pCNVs) has been recognized to associate with fetal growth restriction (FGR). Here, we aim to explore the application value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis of FGR.Methods: Prenatal ultrasound was applied to identify FGR. A total of 149 pregnant women with FGR were enrolled in our study. All subjects underwent karyotype analysis and CMA to reveal the chromosomal abnormalities.Results: In this study, all subjects were successfully detected by karyotype and CMA analyses. Of these subjects, the chromosomal abnormalities detection rate was 5.37% (8/149) for karyotyping and 13.42% (20/149) for CMA, respectively. Among them, an 8.05% (12/149) incremental yield of CMA over karyotype analysis was observed (p = 0.004). In addition, a significant difference of pCNV detection rate was observed between the groups with different high-risk factors (p = 0.005). The FGR with structural anomalies group showed the highest pCNV detection rate (33.33%), followed by the FGR with non-structural anomalies group (8.77%) and the isolated FGR group (8.06%).Conclusion: In conclusion, CMA technology showed an effective application value in etiology diagnosis of FGR. We believe that CMA should be recommended as first-line detection technology for prenatal diagnosis in FGR.

scholarly journals Application of chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingjing Xia ◽  
Xinhong Yang ◽  
Jing Fu ◽  
Zhenjuan Teng ◽  
Yan Lv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Microarray Analysis ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Karyotype Analysis ◽  
Copy Number Variations ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis ◽  
Genetic Abnormalities ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chromosomal Karyotype

Abstract Background To explore the application value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis. Methods The results of chromosome karyotype analysis and CMA of 477 cases undergoing amniocentesis were analyzed. The results of the no ultrasound abnormality group and the ultrasound abnormality group were compared separately. Within the ultrasound abnormality group, the results of the ultrasound structural malformation group, the ultrasound soft index abnormality group, and other ultrasound abnormality (including abnormal amniotic fluid volume and fetal growth restriction) groups were compared. Results Abnormal chromosome and CMA results were found in a total of 71 cases (15.88%, 71/447), which can be broken down into a total of 23 karyotype abnormalities (5.15%, 23/447), consisting of 18 cases of aneuploidy (4.03%, 18/447), 2 cases of unbalanced chromosome rearrangements (0.44%, 2/447), and 3 cases of chimerism (0.67%, 3/447); 17 cases with detection of pathogenic copy number variations (pCNVs) (3.80%, 17/447); and 31 cases of detection of clinical variants of unknown significance (VOUS) (6.93%, 31/447). CMA detected 3.8% more genetic abnormalities than karyotype analysis (in addition to the abnormalities detected simultaneously by karyotype analysis). Between the no ultrasound abnormality group and the ultrasound abnormality group, there was an extremely significant difference in the detection rate of an abnormal chromosomal karyotype (P < 0.01) and of VOUS (P < 0.01), but there was no significant difference in the detection rate of pCNV (P > 0.05). Comparing the ultrasound structural malformation group, the ultrasound soft index abnormality group, and the other ultrasound abnormality group, there were no significant differences in the detection rate of abnormal chromosomal karyotypes (P > 0.05), pCNV (P > 0.05) or VOUS (P > 0.05). Conclusions The detection rate of chromosomal karyotype abnormalities in prenatal diagnosis in cases with no ultrasound abnormalities was higher. For cases with fetal ultrasound structural abnormalities, when compared with traditional karyotype analysis, CMA can improve the detection rate of fetal genetic abnormalities. However, the no ultrasound abnormality group also had a high VOUS abnormality detection rate, so it is necessary to strictly define the CMA indications.

scholarly journals The Necessity of Prenatal Diagnosis by CMA for the Women with NIPS-Positive Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jun Xu ◽  
Ying Xue ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Bin Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Sex Chromosome ◽  
Karyotype Analysis ◽  
Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Array ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis ◽  
Chromosome Aneuploidy ◽  
Prenatal Diagnostic ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Positive Results

Objective. To retrospectively analyze the results of prenatal diagnoses of noninvasive prenatal screening- (NIPS) positive pregnant women and discuss whether there is a need for chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Methods. The study recruited 1,019 NIPS-positive women from two prenatal diagnostic centers. Based on clinical advice, they opted for traditional karyotype analysis or CMA. Single nucleotide polymorphism array testing was performed on a commercial 750K microarray chip (Affymetrix CytoScan 750K Array). Results. Of the NIPS-positive women, 761 (74.7%) accepted the prenatal diagnosis. There were 418 (54.9%) abnormal results, and most (99.5%) were chromosome aneuploidy or structural abnormalities. Only three cases were confirmed as pathogenic copy number variation (CNVs), which were found only with CMA and not by karyotype analysis. Fifteen women were variants of uncertain significance (VUS) CNV. In addition, 300 women selected opted for both karyotype analysis and CMA for prenatal diagnosis: in 275 (91.7%) cases, the results of the two modalities were consistent, while in the remaining 25, they were not. In three cases, the additional positive results obtained with CMA were potentially clinically significant. Conclusions. CMA may not be useful for many women positive for trisomy 21/18/13 based on NIPS results, because traditional karyotype analysis can identify most problems. However, it can yield important additional findings in women positive for fetal sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA). Further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.

scholarly journals Integrated CNV-seq, karyotyping and SNP-array analyses for effective prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal mosaicism

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Na Ma ◽  
Hui Xi ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Ying Peng ◽  
Zhengjun Jia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Sex Chromosome ◽  
Snp Array ◽  
Genomic Rearrangements ◽  
Chromosomal Mosaicism ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Autosomal Aneuploidy ◽  
Number Variation

Abstract Background Emerging studies suggest that low‐coverage massively parallel copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) more sensitive than chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for detecting low-level mosaicism. However, a retrospective back-to-back comparison evaluating accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of CNV-seq compared with CMA is warranted. Methods A total of 72 mosaicism cases identified by karyotyping or CMA were recruited to the study. There were 67 mosaic samples co-analysed by CMA and CNV-seq, comprising 40 with sex chromosome aneuploidy, 22 with autosomal aneuploidy and 5 with large cryptic genomic rearrangements. Results Of the 67 positive mosaic cases, the levels of mosaicism defined by CNV-seq ranged from 6 to 92% compared to the ratio from 3 to 90% by karyotyping and 20% to 72% by CMA. CNV-seq not only identified all 43 chromosomal aneuploidies or large cryptic genomic rearrangements detected by CMA, but also provided a 34.88% (15/43) increased yield compared with CMA. The improved yield of mosaicism detection by CNV-seq was largely due to the ability to detect low level mosaicism below 20%. Conclusion In the context of prenatal diagnosis, CNV-seq identified additional and clinically significant mosaicism with enhanced resolution and increased sensitivity. This study provides strong evidence for applying CNV-seq as an alternative to CMA for detection of aneuploidy and mosaic variants.

Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Prenatal Diagnosis

2014 ◽  
Vol 69 (10) ◽  
pp. 613-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie O. Lo ◽  
Brian L. Shaffer ◽  
Cori D. Feist ◽  
Aaron B. Caughey
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Microarray Analysis ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis

scholarly journals Follow-up in Patients With Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Failures: A Reflection on the Choice of Further Prenatal Diagnosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sha Liu ◽  
Hongqian Liu ◽  
Jianlong Liu ◽  
Ting Bai ◽  
Xiaosha Jing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽  
Detection Methods ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis ◽  
Non Invasive

BackgroundOur aim was to provide a theoretical basis for clinicians to conduct genetic counseling and choose further prenatal diagnosis methods for pregnant women who failed non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS).MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on pregnant women who had failed NIPS tests.ResultsAmong the 123,291 samples, 394 pregnant women did not obtain valid results due to test failures. A total of 378 pregnant women were available for follow-up, while 16 patients were lost to follow-up. Of these 378, 135 pregnant women chose further prenatal diagnosis through amniocentesis, and one case of dysplasia was recalled for postpartum chromosome testing. The incidence rate of congenital chromosomal abnormalities in those who failed the NIPS was 3.97% (15/378), which was higher than that of the chromosomal abnormalities in the common population (1.8%). Among the pregnant women who received prenatal diagnosis, the positive rates of chromosomal abnormalities in the chromosomal microarray analysis/copy number variation sequencing (CMA/CNV-seq) group and in the karyotyping group were 15.28 and 4.76%, respectively.ConclusionPrenatal diagnosis should be strongly recommended in posttest genetic counseling for pregnant women with NIPS failures. Further, high-resolution detection methods should be recommended for additional prenatal diagnoses.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy and value of chromosomal microarray analysis for chromosomal abnormalities in prenatal detection: a prospective clinical study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hailong Huang ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
Min Zhang ◽  
Na Lin ◽  
Gang An ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Microarray Analysis ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Prospective Clinical Study ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray Analysis ◽  
Success Rates

Abstract Background Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and diagnostic value of CMA and karyotyping on chromosomal abnormalities in Fujian province of South China. Methods In the study, 410 samples were obtained from pregnant women between March 2015 and December 2016, including 3 villus (0.73%, 3/410), 296 amniotic fluid (72.20%, 296/410), and 111 umbilical cord blood (27.07%, 111/410). Each sample was screening for chromosomal abnormalities by both using CMA and karyotyping. Results The success rates of CMA and karyotyping were 100% (410/410) and 99.27% (407/410), respectively. 61 (14.88%, 61/410) samples were presented with chromosomal abnormalities using CMA, whereas 47 (11.46%, 47/410) samples were shown with chromosomal abnormalities using karyotyping. 31 (7.56%, 31/410) samples with normal karyotypes were found to have chromosomal abnormalities using CMA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of CMA on the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities was 0.93, with 90.68% sensitivity and 94.40% specificity. The AUC of karyotyping on the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities was 0.90, with 87.56% sensitivity and 91.22% specificity. Conclusions Our data demonstrated that CMA has a better diagnostic value for screening chromosomal abnormalities, especially for pregnant women with normal karyotypes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document