Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 19 March 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Vol. 41 (6), 610-620
- https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12464
Abstract
Objectives Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is utilized in prenatal diagnosis to detect chromosomal abnormalities not visible by conventional karyotyping. A prospective cohort of women undergoing fetal CMA and karyotyping following abnormal prenatal ultrasound findings is presented in the context of a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the literature describing detection rates by CMA and karyotyping. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of 243 women undergoing CMA alongside karyotyping when a structural abnormality was detected on prenatal ultrasound. A systematic review of the literature was also performed. MEDLINE (1970–Dec 2012), EMBASE (1980–Dec 2012) and CINAHL (1982–June 2012) databases were searched electronically. Selected studies included > 10 cases and prenatal CMA in addition to karyotyping. The search yielded 560 citations. Full papers were retrieved for 86, and 25 primary studies were included in the systematic review. Results Our cohort study found an excess detection rate of abnormalities by CMA of 4.1% over conventional karyotyping when the clinical indication for testing was an abnormal fetal ultrasound finding; this was lower than the detection rate of 10% (95% CI, 8–13%) by meta‐analysis. The rate of detection for variants of unknown significance (VOUS) was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.3–3.3%) when the indication for CMA was an abnormal scan finding. The VOUS detection rate was lower (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.5–3.7%) when any indication for prenatal CMA was meta‐analyzed. Conclusion We present evidence for a higher detection rate by CMA than by karyotyping not just in the case of abnormal ultrasound findings but also in cases of other indications for invasive testing. It is likely that CMA will replace karyotyping in high‐risk pregnancies. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Chromosomal Microarray versus Karyotyping for Prenatal DiagnosisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Experience with microarray‐based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnanciesPrenatal Diagnosis, 2012
- Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosisHuman Genetics, 2011
- Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal casesMolecular Cytogenetics, 2011
- Clinical application of whole-genome array CGH during prenatal diagnosis: Study of 25 selected pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings or apparently balanced structural aberrationsMolecular Cytogenetics, 2010
- Application of a target array Comparative Genomic Hybridization to prenatal diagnosisBMC Medical Genetics, 2010
- Population Analysis of Large Copy Number Variants and Hotspots of Human Genetic DiseaseAmerican Journal of Human Genetics, 2009
- Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 casesPrenatal Diagnosis, 2008
- Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesBMJ, 2007
- Cryptic deletions are a common finding in "balanced" reciprocal and complex chromosome rearrangements: a study of 59 patientsJournal of Medical Genetics, 2007