Residual risk for cytogenetic abnormalities after prenatal diagnosis by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 566-571

  Homer, Jeanne ^a   Bhatt, Sucheta ^a   Huang, Bing ^a   Thangavelu, Maya ^a  

^a GENZYME GENETICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytogenetic abnormalities; Detection rate; Interphase FISH; Prenatal diagnosis; Residual risk

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNION FLUID ANALYSIS; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME 13; CHROMOSOME 18; CHROMOSOME 21; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERPHASE; INTERPHASE FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL AGE; NEURAL TUBE DEFECT; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT INDICATION; TRISOMY 18; TRISOMY 21; X CHROMOSOME; Y CHROMOSOME;

ADULT; AMNIOTIC FLUID; CALIFORNIA; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; INTERPHASE; MEDICAL RECORDS; PLOIDIES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0042767525     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.642     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Bryndorf T, Christensen B, Vad M, Parner J, Brocks V, Philip J. 1997. Prenatal detection of chromosome aneuploidies by fluorescence in situ hybridization: experience with 2000 uncultured amniotic fluid samples in a prospective preclinical trial. Prenat Diagn 17: 333-341.
2. Evans MI, Henry GP, Miller WA, et al. 1999. International collaborative assessment of 146000 prenatal karyotypes: expected limitations if only chromosome specific probes and fluorescent in situ hybridization are used. Hum Reprod 14: 1213-1216.
3. Evans MI, Pryde PG, Evans WJ, Johnson MP. 1993. The choices women make about prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther Suppl 1: 70-80.
4. Feldman B, Ebrahim SAD, Hazan SL, et al. 2000. Routine prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy by FISH studies in high-risk pregnancies. Am J Med Genet 90: 233-238.
5. Lewin P, Kleinfinger P, Bazin A, Mossafa H, Szpiro-Tapia S. 2000. Defining efficiency of fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes on a retrospective cohort of 27 407 prenatal diagnoses. Prenat Diagn 20: 1-6.
6. Pergament E, Chen PX, Thangavelu M, Fiddler M. 2000. The clinical application of interphase FISH in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 20: 215-220.
7. Thein ATA, Abdel-Fattah SA, Kyle PM, Soothill PW. 2000. An assessment of the use of interphase FISH with chromosome specific probes as an alternative to cytogenetics in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 20: 275-280.
8. Thilaganathan B, Sairam S, Ballard T, Peterson C, Meredith R. 2000. Effectiveness of prenatal chromosomal analysis using multicolor fluorescent in situ hybridization. BJOG 107: 262-266.
9. Ward BE, Gersen SL, Carelli MP, et al. 1993. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies by fluorescence in situ hybridization: clinical experience with 4 500 specimens. Am J Hum Genet 52: 854-865.