Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 5, pp 1221–1225 | Cite as

Indications for genetic testing leading to termination of pregnancy

  • Ran SvirskyEmail author
  • Marina Pekar-Zlotin
  • Uri Rozovski
  • Ron Maymon
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



In this study, we aimed to assess the distribution of genetic abnormalities leading to termination of pregnancy and its fluctuation during the past 8 years in light of those technical advances.


Our cohort consisted of all pregnant women who underwent termination of pregnancy because of genetic aberrations in their fetuses from January 2010 through April 2018 in our medical center. The information that was gathered included: maternal age, results of the nuchal scan, results of the first- and second-trimester biochemical screening, ultrasonographic findings, reasons for conducting a genetic evaluation, gestational age at which termination of pregnancy was carried out, and the type of genetic aberration.


816 women underwent termination of pregnancy at our institution due to genetic aberrations, most of them because of positive biochemical screening (n = 297, 36%) or because of maternal anxiety (n = 283, 35%). Findings in chromosomal microarray led to termination of pregnancy in 100 women (100/816, 12%). Chromosomal microarray had been performed due to maternal choice and not because of accepted medical indications among most of the women who underwent termination of pregnancy due to findings on chromosomal microarray (69/100, 69%).


Performing chromosomal microarray on a structurally normal fetus and identifying abnormal copy number variants may give the parents enough information for deciding on the further course of the pregnancy.


Chromosomal aberrations Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) Single gene mutation Termination of pregnancy Trend 


Author contributions

SR: project development, data collection, manuscript writing. PM: data collection, manuscript writing. RU: statistical analysis, manuscript writing. MR: project development, manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

The local IRB committee approved this retrospective study (approval 0008-17-ASF), without requiring informed consent since this is a retrospective study, all the data were gathered using complete anonymity, and it is not applicable to our manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Kalter H (1991) Five-decade international trends in the relation of perinatal mortality and congenital malformations: stillbirth and neonatal death compared. Int J Epidemiol 20:173–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peller AJ, Westgate MN, Holmes LB (2004) Trends in congenital malformations, 1974–1999: effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination. Obstet Gynecol 104:957–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evans MI, Andriole S, Evans SM (2015) Genetics: update on prenatal screening and diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 42:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Fisher AJ et al (2012) Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 32:976–985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B et al (2012) Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 367:2175–2184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Committee Opinion No 581 (2011) Characteristics of the Earliest Cross-Neutralizing Antibody Response to HIV-1. PLoS Pathogens 71374–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dugoff L, Norton ME, Kuller JA, Medicine SFMF (2016) The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 215:B2–B9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Weitzman D, Gohar J, Carmi R (2011) Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 76(2):141–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parliamnet. I. Israel penalty law termination of pregnancy. 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svirsky R, Reches A, Brabbing-Goldstein D, Bar-Shira A, Yaron Y (2017) Association of aberrant right subclavian artery with abnormal karyotype and microarray results. Prenat Diagn 37:808–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svirsky R, Brabbing-Goldstein D, Rozovski U, Kapusta L, Reches A, Yaron Y (2018) The genetic and clinical outcome of isolated fetal muscular ventricular septal defect (VSD). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018:1–11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maymon R, Reish O, Schneider D, Halperin R, Herman A (2003) Fetal abnormalities leading to termination of pregnancy: the experience at the Assaf Harofeh Medical center between the years 1999–2000. Harefuah 142(6):405–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Rosenfeld JA et al (2012) Referral patterns for microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 32:611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miny P, Wenzel F, Tercanli S, Filges I (2013) Chromosomal microarrays in prenatal diagnosis: time for a change of policy? Microarrays (Basel) 2(10):(10):304–317–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sagi-Dain L, Cohen Vig L, Kahana S, Yacobson S, Tenne T, Agmon-Fishman I, Klein C, Matar R, Basel-Salmon L, Maya I. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies. Genet Med. 2019Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA (2013) The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 33:1119–1123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brabbing-Goldstein D, Reches A, Svirsky R, Bar-Shira A, Yaron Y (2018) Dilemmas in genetic counseling for low-penetrance neuro-susceptibility loci detected on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218:2471 e1–4712 e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, Odibo A, Akolekar R (2019) Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of the literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (Epub ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyThe Yitzhak Shamir Medical Center (Formerly Assaf Harofeh Medical Center) (affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel)ZerifinIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer CenterBeilinson Hospital (all affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel)Petach TikvaIsrael

Personalised recommendations