Rapid aneuploidy testing (knowing less) versus traditional karyotyping (knowing more) for advanced maternal age: What would be missed, who should decide?

Hong Kong Medical Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 6-13

  Leung, W C ^a   Lau, E T ^b   Lau, W L ^a   Tang, Rebecca ^c   Wong, Shell Fean ^d,g   Lau, T K ^e   Tse, K T ^f   Wong, S F ^d,g   To, W K ^h   Ng, Lucy K L ^b   Lao, T T ^b   Tang, Mary H Y ^b  

^a KWONG WAH HOSPITAL   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c PAMELA YOUDE NETHERSOLE EASTERN HOSPITAL   (Hong Kong)

^d Princess Margaret Hospital and Caritas Medical Centre

^e PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^f Queen Elizabeth Hospital

^g TUEN MUN HOSPITAL   (Hong Kong)

^h United Christian Hospital

Author keywords

Abortion, induced; Amniocentesis; Aneuploidy; Karyotyping; Prenatal diagnosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; AMNION FLUID ANALYSIS; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; FEMALE; HONG KONG; HUMAN; KARYOTYPING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL AGE; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEX CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; TRISOMY 13; TRISOMY 18; TRISOMY 21; CHROMOSOME DISORDER; DECISION MAKING; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; INDUCED ABORTION; METHODOLOGY; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

ABORTION, INDUCED; ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ANEUPLOIDY; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; DATABASES, GENETIC; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; KARYOTYPING; MATERNAL AGE; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 41649104904     PISSN: 10242708     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ward BE, Gersen SL, Carelli MP, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies by fluorescence in situ hybridization: clinical experience with 4,500 specimens. Am J Hum Genet 1993;52:854-65.
2. Eiben B, Trawicki W, Hammans W, Goebel R, Pruggmayer M, Epplen JT. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Evaluation of >3,000 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther 1999;14:193-7.
3. Estabrooks LL, Sapeta M, Lytle C. Prenatal interphase FISH using the AneuVysion probe set in over 10,000 samples. Am J Hum Genet 1999;65:A162.
4. Pergament E, Chen PX, Thangavelu M, Fiddler M. The clinical application of interphase FISH in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:215-20.
5. Witters I, Devriendt K, Legius E, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 in 5049 consecutive uncultured amniotic fluid samples by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Prenat Diagn 2002;22:29-33.
6. Pertl B, Yau SC, Sherlock J, Davies AF, Mathew CG, Adinolfi M. Rapid molecular method for prenatal detection of Down's syndrome. Lancet 1994;343:1197-8.
7. Verma L, Macdonald F, Leedham P, McConachie M, Dhanjal S, Hultén M. Rapid and simple prenatal DNA diagnosis of Down's syndrome. Lancet 1998;352:9-12.
8. Levett LJ, Liddle S, Meredith R. A large-scale evaluation of amnio-PCR for the rapid prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:115-8.
9. Mann K, Fox SP, Abbs SJ, et al. Development and implementation of a new rapid aneuploidy diagnostic service within the UK National Health Service and implications for the future of prenatal diagnosis. Lancet 2001;358:1057-61.
10. Cirigliano V, Lewin P, Szpiro-Tapies S, Fuster C, Adinolfi M. Assessment of new markers for the rapid detection of aneuploidies by quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR). Ann Hum Genet 2001;65:421-7.
11. Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Cañadas MP, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies by QFPCR. Assessment on 18,000 consecutive clinical samples. Mol Hum Reprod 2004;10:839-46.
12. Thilaganathan B, Sairam S, Ballard T, Peterson C, Meredith R. Effectiveness of prenatal chromosomal analysis using multicolor fluorescent in situ hybridisation. BJOG 2000;107:262-6.
13. Thein AT, Abdel-Fattah SA, Kyle PM, Soothill PW. An assessment of the use of interphase FISH with chromosome specific probes as an alternative to cytogenetics in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:275-80.
14. Ryall RG, Callen D, Cocciolone R, et al. Karyotypes found in the population declared at increased risk of Down syndrome following maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:553-7.
15. Leung WC, Lau ET, Lao TT, Tang MH. Can amnio-polymerase chain reaction alone replace conventional cytogenetic study for women with positive biochemical screening for fetal Down syndrome? Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:856-61.
16. Ogilvie CM. Prenatal diagnosis for chromosome abnormalities: past, present and future. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2003;51:156-60.
17. Nicolini U, Lalatta F, Natacci F, Curcio C, Bui TH. The introduction of QF-PCR in prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: time for reconsideration. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:541-8.
18. Evans MI, Henry GP, Miller WA, et al. International, collaborative assessment of 146,000 prenatal karyotypes: expected limitations if only chromosome-specific probes and fluorescent in-situ hybridization are used. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1213-6.
19. Lewin P, Kleinfinger P, Bazin A, Mossafa H, Szpiro-Tapia S. Defining the efficiency of fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes on a retrospective cohort of 27407 prenatal diagnoses. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:1-6.
20. Homer J, Bhatt S, Huang B, Thangavelu M. Residual risk for cytogenetic abnormalities after prenatal diagnosis by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Prenat Diagn 2003;23:566-71.
21. UK Department of Health. Our inheritance, our future: realizing the potential of genetics in the NHS. London: Stationery Office; 2003.
22. Caine A, Maltby AE, Parkin CA, Waters JJ, Crolla JA, UK Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists (ACC). Prenatal detection of Down's syndrome by rapid aneuploidy testing for chromosomes 13, 18, and 21 by FISH or PCR without a full karyotype: a cytogenetic risk assessment. Lancet 2005;366:123-8.
23. Leung WC, Lao TT. Rapid aneuploidy testing, traditional karyotyping, or both? Lancet 2005;366:97-8. Erratum in: Lancet 2005;366:1164.
24. Leung WC, Waters JJ, Chitty L. Prenatal diagnosis by rapid aneuploidy detection and karyotyping: a prospective study of the role of ultrasound in 1589 second-trimester amniocenteses. Prenat Diagn 2004;24:790-5.
25. Kagan KO, Chitty LS, Cicero S, Eleftheriades M, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound findings before amniocentesis in selecting the method of analysing the sample. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:34-9.
26. Ogilvie CM, Lashwood A, Chitty L, Waters JJ, Scriven PN, Flinter F. The future of prenatal diagnosis: rapid testing or full karyotype? An audit of chromosome abnormalities and pregnancy outcomes for women referred for Down's Syndrome testing. BJOG 2005;112:1369-75.
27. Shaffer LG, Bui TH. Molecular cytogenetic and rapid aneuploidy detection methods in prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2007;145:87-98.
28. Hultén MA, Dhanjal S, Pertl B. Rapid and simple prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome disorders: advantages and disadvantages of the molecular methods FISH and QFPCR. Reproduction 2003;126:279-97.
29. Mann K, Donaghue C, Fox SP, Docherty Z, Ogilvie CM. Strategies for the rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosome aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet 2004;12:907-15.
30. Leung WC, Lau ET, Lao TT, Tang MH. Rapid aneuploidy screening (FISH or QF-PCR): the changing scene in prenatal diagnosis? Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2004;4:333-7.
31. Dudarewicz L, Holzgreve W, Jeziorowska A, Jakubowski L, Zimmermann B. Molecular methods for rapid detection of aneuploidy. J Appl Genet 2005;46:207-15.
32. Leung WC, Chitayat D, Seaward G. Role of amniotic fluid interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis in patient management. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:327-32.
33. Leung WC, Lau ET, Ngai C, Lam H, Leung KY, Lee CP, Lao TT, Tang MHY. A prospective study on the effect of rapid aneuploidy testing (amnio-PCR) on anxiety levels and quality of life measures in women and their partners with positive Down screening result. Fetal Diagn Ther. In press.
34. Adinolfi M, Sherlock J. Prenatal detection of chromosome disorders by QF-PCR. Lancet 2001;358:1030-1.
35. Abramsky L, Hall S, Levitan J, Marteau TM. What parents are told after prenatal diagnosis of a sex chromosome abnormality: interview and questionnaire study. BMJ 2001;322:463-6.
36. Sagi M, Meiner V, Reshef N, Dagan J, Zlotogora J. Prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidy: possible reasons for high rates of pregnancy termination. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:461-5.
37. Donaghue C, Roberts A, Mann K, Ogilvie CM. Development and targeted application of a rapid QF-PCR test for sex chromosome imbalance. Prenat Diagn 2003;23:201-10.
38. Brock DJ, Rodeck CH, Ferguson-Smith MA. Prenatal diagnosis and screening. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1992.
39. Hook EB. Spontaneous deaths of fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities diagnosed prenatally. N Engl J Med 1978;299:1036-8.
40. Huang B, Thangavelu M, Bhatt S, J Sandlin C, Wang S. Prenatal diagnosis of 45,X and 45,X mosaicism: the need for thorough cytogenetic and clinical evaluations. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:105-10.
41. van Zwieten MC, Willems DL, Litjens LL, Schuring-Blom HG, Leschot N. How unexpected are unexpected findings in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis? A literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;120:15-21.
42. Warburton D. De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints. Am J Hum Genet 1991;49:995-1013.
43. Bui TH. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis: gone FISHing, BAC soon! Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30:247-51.