Experience with microarray‐based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies

Abstract

Objective To demonstrate the usefulness of microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis based on our laboratory experience. Methods Prenatal samples received from 2004 to 2011 for a variety of indications ( n = 5003) were tested using comparative genomic hybridization‐based microarrays targeted to known chromosomal syndromes with later versions of the microarrays providing backbone coverage of the entire genome. Results The overall detection rate of clinically significant copy number alterations (CNAs) among unbiased, nondemise cases was 5.3%. Detection rates were 6.5% and 8.2% for cases referred with abnormal ultrasounds and fetal demise, respectively. The overall rate of findings with unclear clinical significance was 4.2% but would reduce to 0.39% if only de novo CNAs were considered. In cases with known chromosomal rearrangements in the fetus or parent, 41.1% showed CNAs related to the rearrangements, whereas 1.3% showed clinically significant CNAs unrelated to the karyotype. Finally, 71% of the clinically significant CNAs found by microarray were below the resolution of conventional karyotyping of fetal chromosomes. Conclusions Microarray analysis has advantages over conventional cytogenetics, including the ability to more precisely characterize CNAs associated with abnormal karyotypes. Moreover, a significant proportion of cases studied by array will show a clinically significant CNA even with apparently normal karyotypes. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 28

1. 1.

   Sahoo T, Cheung SW, Ward P, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Genet Med. 2006;8:719-27.

   Not in our library10.1097/01.gim.0000245576.47154.63

2. 2.

   Shaffer LG, Coppinger J, Alliman S, et al. Comparison of microarray-based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:789-95.

   Not in our library10.1002/pd.2053

3. 3.

   Van den Veyver IB, Patel A, Shaw CA, et al. Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:29-39.

   Not in our library10.1002/pd.2127

4. 4.

   Coppinger J, Alliman S, Lamb AN, et al. Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:1156-66.

   Not in our library10.1002/pd.2371

5. 5.

   Kleeman L, Bianchi DW, Shaffer LG, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:1213-7.

   Not in our library10.1002/pd.2367

6. 6.

   Tyreman M, Abbott KM, Willatt LR, et al. High resolution array analysis: diagnosing pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. J Med Genet. 2009;46:531-41.

   Not in our library10.1136/jmg.2008.065482

7. 7.

   Faas BH, van der Burgt I, Kooper AJ, et al. Identification of clinically significant, submicroscopic chromosome alterations and UPD in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies using genome-wide 250 k SNP array analysis. J Med Genet. 2010;47:586-94.

   Not in our library10.1136/jmg.2009.075853

8. 8.

   Maya I, Davidov B, Gershovitz L, et al. Diagnostic utility of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in a prenatal setting. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30:1131-7.

   Not in our library10.1002/pd.2626

9. 9.
   Clinical application of whole-genome array CGH during prenatal diagnosis: Study of 25 selected pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings or apparently balanced structural aberrations · 2010

   Not checked
10. 10.

    Park SJ, Jung EH, Ryu RS, et al. Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal cases. Mol Cytogenet. 2011;4:12.

    Not in our library10.1186/1755-8166-4-12

11. 11.

    Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S, et al. Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31:1270-82.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.2884

12. 12.

    D'Amours G, Kibar Z, Mathonnet G, et al. Whole-genome array CGH identifies pathogenic copy number variations in fetuses with major malformations and a normal karyotype. Clin Genet. 2012;81:128-41.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01687.x

13. 13.

    Breman A, Pursley AN, Hixson P, et al. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:351-61.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.3861

14. 14.

    Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, et al. Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2012;119:614-25.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03279.x

15. 15.

    Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Rosenfeld JA, et al. Referral patterns for microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:344-50.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.3856

16. 16.

    Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:6-14.

    Not in our library10.1002/uog.7754

17. 17.

    Wapner R. A multicenter, prospective, masked comparison of chromosomal microarray with standard karyotyping for routine and high risk prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:S2.

    Not in our library

18. 18.
    Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound · 2012

    No notice
19. 19.

    Ballif BC, Kashork CD, Saleki R, et al. Detecting sex chromosome anomalies and common triploidies in products of conception by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26:333-9.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.1411

20. 20.

    Armengol L, Nevado J, Serra-Juhe C, et al. Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Genet. 2012;131:513-23.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00439-011-1095-5

21. 21.

    Bachmann-Gagescu R, Mefford HC, Cowan C, et al. Recurrent 200-kb deletions of 16p11.2 that include the SH2B1 gene are associated with developmental delay and obesity. Genet Med. 2010;12:641-7.

    Not in our library10.1097/gim.0b013e3181ef4286

22. 22.

    Cooper GM, Coe BP, Girirajan S, et al. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nat Genet. 2011;43:838-46.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.909

23. 23.

    Baldwin EL, Lee JY, Blake DM, et al. Enhanced detection of clinically relevant genomic imbalances using a targeted plus whole genome oligonucleotide microarray. Genet Med. 2008;10:415-29.

    Not in our library10.1097/gim.0b013e318177015c

24. 24.

    McGillivray G, Rosenfeld JA, Gardner RJM, et al. Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:389-95.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.3849

25. 25.

    Wapner RJ, Driscoll DA, Simpson JL. Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:396-400.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.3863

26. 26.

    Coman DJ, Gardner RJ. Deletions that reveal recessive genes. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:1103-4.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201919

27. 27.

    Koifman A, Feigenbaum A, Bi W, et al. A homozygous deletion of 8q24.3 including the NIBP gene associated with severe developmental delay, dysgenesis of the corpus callosum, and dysmorphic facial features. Am J Med Genet A. 2010;152A:1268-72.

    Not in our library10.1002/ajmg.a.33319

28. 28.

    Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Cooper GM, et al. A recurrent 16p12.1 microdeletion supports a two-hit model for severe developmental delay. Nat Genet. 2010;42:203-9.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.534

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromosomal microarray as a primary test for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong · 2020
  Not checked
• The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature · 2013
  No notice
• Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound · 2012
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.