Karyotype versus Microarray Testing for Genetic Abnormalities after Stillbirth
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 6 December 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 367 (23), 2185-2193
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1201569
Abstract
Genetic abnormalities have been associated with 6 to 13% of stillbirths, but the true prevalence may be higher. Unlike karyotype analysis, microarray analysis does not require live cells, and it detects small deletions and duplications called copy-number variants. The Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network conducted a population-based study of stillbirth in five geographic catchment areas. Standardized postmortem examinations and karyotype analyses were performed. A single-nucleotide polymorphism array was used to detect copy-number variants of at least 500 kb in placental or fetal tissue. Variants that were not identified in any of three databases of apparently unaffected persons were then classified into three groups: probably benign, clinical significance unknown, or pathogenic. We compared the results of karyotype and microarray analyses of samples obtained after delivery. In our analysis of samples from 532 stillbirths, microarray analysis yielded results more often than did karyotype analysis (87.4% vs. 70.5%, P<0.001) and provided better detection of genetic abnormalities (aneuploidy or pathogenic copy-number variants, 8.3% vs. 5.8%; P=0.007). Microarray analysis also identified more genetic abnormalities among 443 antepartum stillbirths (8.8% vs. 6.5%, P=0.02) and 67 stillbirths with congenital anomalies (29.9% vs. 19.4%, P=0.008). As compared with karyotype analysis, microarray analysis provided a relative increase in the diagnosis of genetic abnormalities of 41.9% in all stillbirths, 34.5% in antepartum stillbirths, and 53.8% in stillbirths with anomalies. Microarray analysis is more likely than karyotype analysis to provide a genetic diagnosis, primarily because of its success with nonviable tissue, and is especially valuable in analyses of stillbirths with congenital anomalies or in cases in which karyotype results cannot be obtained. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.)Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Diagnostic Exome Sequencing in Persons with Severe Intellectual DisabilityNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Phenotypic Heterogeneity of Genomic Disorders and Rare Copy-Number VariantsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Causes of Death Among StillbirthsJAMA, 2011
- The Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network Postmortem Examination ProtocolAmerican Journal of Perinatology, 2011
- Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network: design, methods and recruitment experiencePaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 2011
- Genome‐wide array‐based copy number profiling in human placentas from unexplained stillbirthsPrenatal Diagnosis, 2011
- Copy-number changes in prenatal diagnosisExpert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 2011
- The Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network (SCRN) Placental and Umbilical Cord Examination ProtocolAmerican Journal of Perinatology, 2011
- Consensus Statement: Chromosomal Microarray Is a First-Tier Clinical Diagnostic Test for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities or Congenital AnomaliesAmerican Journal of Human Genetics, 2010
- Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization for Genetic Evaluation of Fetal Loss Between 10 and 20 Weeks of GestationObstetrics & Gynecology, 2009