Cytogenetic microarray in structurally normal and abnormal foetuses: a five years experience elucidating increasing acceptance and clinical utility
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of prenatal cytogenetic microarray (CMA) in structurally normal and abnormal foetuses and record the acceptance rate of CMA for prenatal diagnosis over a course of five years. In 128 structurally normal and abnormal foetuses, CMA was performed along with foetal karyotype, after exclusion of aneuploidy by quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction. The microarray was able to detect the pathogenic variants in 5.5% cases; the diagnostic yield in structurally abnormal foetuses was 8.8% and 4.7% in foetuses with a high aneuploidy risk. Balanced and unbalanced translocations, and low level mosaicism were detected. Reanalysis of variants of uncertain significance identified pathogenic variant. The study shows higher diagnostic yield in structurally abnormal cases, the importance of foetal karyotype and reanalysis in microarray. The acceptance rate of prenatal CMA increased five-fold over a period of five years.
Keywordcytogenetic microarray prenatal foetal structural abnormalities karyotype variants of uncertain significance
We thank ‘Indian Council of Medical Research’ for funding support (ICMR grant number: 63/8/2010-BMS) and we are thankful to the patients’ families for their unending support and patience.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics 2013 Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet. Gynecol. 122, 1374–1377.Google Scholar
- Boggula V. R., Agarwal M., Kumar R., Awasthi S. and Phadke S. R. 2015 Recurrent benign copy number variants and issues in interpretation of variants of unknown significance identified by cytogenetic microarray in Indian patients with intellectual disability. Indian J. Med. Res. 142, 699–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Esplin E. D., Li B., Slavotinek A., Novelli A., Battaglia, Clark R. et al. 2014 Nine patients with Xp22.31 microduplication, cognitive deficits, seizures, and talipes anomalies. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 164, 2097–2103.Google Scholar
- Redon R., Rigler D. and Carter N. P. 2009 Comparative genomic hybridization: DNA preparation for microarray fabrication. Methods Mol. Biol. 529, 259–266.Google Scholar
- South S. T., Lee C., Lamb A. N., Higgins A. W., Kearney H. M. et al. 2013 Working Group for the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. ACMG Standards and Guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013. Genet. Med. 15, 901–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar