Comparison of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 115, Issue 2 PART 1, 2010, Pages 297-303

  Boormans, Elisabeth M ^a   Birnie, Erwin ^a   Oepkes, Dick ^a   Galjaard, Robert Jan ^a   Schuring Blom, Gijsbertha H ^a   Van Lith, Jan M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNION FLUID ANALYSIS; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME 13; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KARYOTYPING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIPLEX LIGATION DEPENDENT PROBE AMPLIFICATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X CHROMOSOME; Y CHROMOSOME; AMNIOCENTESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST; ECONOMICS; MULTICENTER STUDY; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION; PREGNANCY;

AMNIOCENTESIS; ANEUPLOIDY; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; KARYOTYPING; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION TECHNIQUES; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 76549123986     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cbc652     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. 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.
2. Annual Report 2004. Arnhem: Working Party Prenatal Diagnosis and Fetal Therapy. Available at http://www.nvog.nl/Voor+Leden/Pijlers/Pijler+Foeto- Maternale+Geneeskunde/Werkgroep + Prenatale+Diagnostiek+en+Foetale+Therapi/ default.aspx. Retrieved December 16, 2009.
3. Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Safety and accuracy. JAMA 1976;236:1471-6.
4. Tabor A, Madsen M, Obel EB, Philip J, Bang J, Norgaard-Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986;1:1287-93.
5. Los FJ, van Den Berg C, Wildschut HI, Brandenburg H, den Hollander NS, Schoonderwaldt EM, et al. The diagnostic performance of cytogenetic investigation in amniotic fluid cells and chorionic villi. Pren Diagn 2001;21:150-8.
6. Golbus MS, Loughman WD, Epstein CJ, Halbasch G, Stephens JD, Hall BD. Prenatal genetic diagnosis in 3000 amniocentesis. N EnglJ Med 1979;300:157-63.
7. Van Zwieten MCB, 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;120:15-20.
8. Slater HR, Bruno DL, Ren H, Pertile M, SchoutenJP, Choo KH. Rapid, high throughput prenatal detection of aneuploidy using a novel quantitative method (MLPA). J Med Genet 2003;40:907-12.
9. Gerdes T, Kirchhoff M, Lind AM, Vestergaard Larsen G, Schwartz M, Lundsteen C. Computer-assisted prenatal aneuploidy screening for chromosome 13, 18,21, X and Y based on multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). EurJ Hum Gen 2005;13:171-5.
10. Boormans EM, Birnie E, Wildschut HI, Schuring-Blom HG, Oepkes D, van Oppen CA, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the MA.K.E. study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008;8:18.
11. Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Quality guideline invasive prenatal diagnosis. Utrecht (Netherlands): NVOG; 1997.
12. Hochstenbach R, Meijer J, Van De BrugJ, Vossebeld-Hoff I, Jansen R, Van Der Luijt RB, et al. Rapid detection of chromosomal aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Prenat Diagn 2005;25:1032-9.
13. Dutch Society of Human Genetics. Quality in clinical cytogenetics: conditions, standards and tests. Amsterdam (Netherlands): NVHG; 2003.
14. OostenbrinkJB, Boumans CAM, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen (Netherlands): College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2004.
15. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1996.
16. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998;52: 119-26.
17. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17: 857-72.
18. Kooper AJA, Faas BHW, Kater-Baats E, Feuth T, Janssen JC, van der Burgt I, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) as a stand-alone test for rapid aneu-ploidy detection in amniotic fluid cells. Pren Diagn 2008;28: 1004-10.
19. Gerdes T, Kirchhoff M, Lind AM, Vestergaard Larsen G, Kjaergaard S. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) in prenatal diagnosis-experience of a large series of rapid testing for aneuploidy of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Pren Diagn 2008;28:1119-25.
20. Van Opstal D, Boter M, De Jong D, Van Den Berg C, Brüggen-wirth HT, Wildschut HIJ, et al. Rapid aneuploidy detection with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification: a prospective study of 4000 amniotic fluid samples. Eur J Hum Gen 2009;17:112-21.
21. Shaffer LG, Bui TH. Molecular cytogenetic and rapid aneu-ploidy detection methods in prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2007;145C:87-98.
22. Grimshaw GM, Szczepura A, Hultén M, MacDonald F, Nevin NC, Sutton F, et al. Evaluation of molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-146.
23. Mann K, Fox SP, Abbs SJ, Ching Yau S, Scriven PN, Docherty Z, 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.
24. Tepperberg J, Pettenati MJ, Rao PN, Lese CM, Rita D, Wyandt H, et al. Prenatal diagnosis using interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): 2-year multi-center retrospective study and review of the literature. Pren Diagn 2001; 21:293-301.
25. Ogilvie CM, Donaghue C, Fox SP, Docherty Z, Mann K. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy using quantitative fluorescence-PCR (QF-PCR). J of Histochem Cytochem 2005; 53:285-8.
26. Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Ordoñez E, Marongiu A, Paz Cañ adas M, Ejarque M, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies by QF-PCR, results of 9 years of clinical experience. Pren Diagn 2009;29:40-9.
27. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1459-67.
28. 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.
29. Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1895-6.
30. Ryan M, Diack J, Watson V, Smith N. Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Pren Diagn 2005; 25:1206-11.
31. Bui TH. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis: gone FISHing, BAC soon! Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30:247-51.
32. Van Den Veyver IB, Beaudet AL. Comparative genomic hybridization and prenatal diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006;18:185-91.
33. Lo YM. Fetal nucleic acids in maternal plasma. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008;1137:140-3.