BMC Medical Genomics · 2021 · 23 citations · 17 references
MedicineGeneticsObstetricsHuman GeneticsUltrasonographyUltrasoundChromosomal AbnormalitiesCopy Number Variant AnalysisCopy Number VariantsFetal AnomaliesFetal Anomaly DetectionObstetric UltrasonographyFetal Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFetal KaryotypingNumerical Chromosomal AbnormalitiesPrenatal Detection Of Copy Number VariantsPrenatal KaryotypingSingle Nucleotide Polymorphism ArraysSingle-nucleotide Polymorphism AnalysisSnp Arrays
BACKGROUND: Some ultrasonic soft markers can be found during ultrasound examination. However, the etiology of the fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers is still unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the genetic etiology and clinical value of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations (CNVs) in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers. METHODS: Among 1131 fetuses, 729 had single ultrasonic soft marker, 322 had two ultrasonic soft markers, and 80 had three or more ultrasonic soft markers. All fetuses underwent conventional karyotyping, followed by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis. RESULTS: Among 1131 fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers, 46 had chromosomal abnormalities. In addition to the 46 fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities consistent with the results of the karyotyping analysis, the SNP array identified additional 6.1% (69/1131) abnormal CNVs. The rate of abnormal CNVs in fetuses with ultrasonic soft marker, two ultrasonic soft markers, three or more ultrasonic soft markers were 6.2%, 6.2%, and 5.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the rate of abnormal CNVs among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic abnormalities affect obstetrical outcomes. The SNP array can fully complement conventional karyotyping in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers, improve detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities, and affect pregnancy outcomes.
17
Chromosomal Microarray versus Karyotyping for Prenatal Diagnosis
Ronald J. Wapner, Brynn Levy, Blake C. Ballif et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2012 · 1.4K citations · Full text
Life Sciences, Genetics, Obstetrics +17
Chromosomal Microarray Versus Karyotyping for Prenatal Diagnosis
Ronald J. Wapner, Christa Lese Martin, Brynn Levy et al. · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2013 · 135 citations
Life Sciences, Genetics, Obstetrics +17
Nicolien Hanemaaijer, Birgit Sikkema‐Raddatz, Gerben van der Vries et al. · European Journal of Human Genetics · 2011 · 71 citations · Full text
Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies
Lena Sagi‐Dain, Lital Cohen Vig, Sarit Kahana et al. · Genetics in Medicine · 2019 · 68 citations · Full text
Medicine, Genetics, Obstetrics +14