Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation: Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis?

Hong Kong Medical Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 427-433

  Lim, Alvin S T ^a   Lim, T H ^a   Hess, Michelle M ^b   Kee, S K ^a   Lau, Yvonne Y F ^c   Gilbert, Rebecca ^b   Hempel, Thomas E ^b   Anderson, Kirby J ^b   Zaleski, Dianna H ^b   Tien, S L ^a   Chia, Patrick ^d   Subramaniam, Raman ^d   Tan, H K ^a   Tan, Ann S A ^e   Sanger, Warren G ^b  

^a SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

^c SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCE   (Singapore)

^d Fetal Medicine and Gynaecology Centre   (Malaysia)

^e Women and Fetal Centre   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Aneuploidy; Fluorescence; In situ hybridization; Karyotyping; Prenatal diagnosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME 13; CHROMOSOME 18; CHROMOSOME 21; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CHROMOSOME MOSAICISM; CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; KARYOTYPE; KARYOTYPE 47,XXX; KARYOTYPE 47,XXY; KARYOTYPE 47,XYY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MONOSOMY X; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGAPORE; TRIPLOIDY; TRISOMY 13; TRISOMY 18; TRISOMY 21; UNITED STATES; X CHROMOSOME; Y CHROMOSOME;

ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; MATERNAL AGE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 79951496282     PISSN: 10242708     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Pergament E, Chen PX, Thangavelu M, Fiddler M. The clinical application of interphase FISH in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:215-20.
2. Cirigliano V, Lewin P, Szpiro-Tapies S, et al. Assessment of new markers for the rapid detection of aneuploidies by quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR). Ann Hum Genet 1992;56:421-7.
3. Klinger K, Landes G, Shook D, et al. Rapid detection of chromosome aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Am J Hum Genet 1992;51:55-65.
4. Choolani M, Ho SS, Razvi K, et al. FastFISH: technique for ultrarapid fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes yielding results within 2 h of amniocentesis. Mol Hum Reprod 2007;13:355-9.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. D'Alton ME, Malone FD, Chelmow D, Ward BE, Bianchi DW. Defining the role of fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes for prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies. Am J Obset Gynecol 1995;176:769-76.
8. Jalal SM, Law ME, Carlson RO, Dewald GW. Prenatal detection of aneuploidy by directly labeled multicolored probes and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mayo Clin Proc 1998;73:132-7.
9. Morris A, Boyd E, Dhanjal S, et al. Two year's prospective experience using fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniotic fluid cells for rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosomal aneuploidies. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:546-51.
10. 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.
11. Wyandt HE, Tonk VS, Huang XL, Evans AT, Milunsky JM, Milunsky A. Correlation of abnormal rapid FISH and chromosome results from amniocytes for prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2006;21:235-40.
12. Shaffer LG, Bui TH. Molecular cytogenetic and rapid aneuploidy detection methods in prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2007;145C:87-98.
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. Ogilvie CM. Prenatal diagnosis for chromosome abnormalities: past, present and future. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2003;51:156-60.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Leclercq S, Lebbar A, Grange G, Tsatsaris V, Le Tessier D, Dupont JM. Optimized criteria for using fluorescence in situ hybridization in the prenatal diagnosis of common aneuploidies. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:313-8.
18. Leung TN. Rapid aneuploidy testing versus traditional karyotyping: is it better to know more? Hong Kong Med J 2008;14:4-5.
19. Lim HJ, Kim YJ, Yang JH, et al. Amniotic fluid interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for detection of aneuploidy; experiences in 130 prenatal cases. J Korean Med Sci 2002;17:589-92.
20. Feldman B, Aviram-Goldring A, Evans MI. Interphase FISH for prenatal diagnosis of common aneuploidies. In: Fan YS, editor. Methods in molecular biology. Vol 204. Totowa: Humana Press; 2002:219-41.
21. Evers-Kiebooms G, Swerts A, van den Berghe H. Psychological aspects of amniocentesis: anxiety feelings in three different risk groups. Clin Genet 1988;33:196-206.
22. Dickinson JE, Harcourt E, Murch A. The selective use of rapid aneuploidy screening in prenatal diagnosis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;49:28-33.
23. Dupont JM, Carles E. Three-year national survey of prenatal cytogenetic activity in France 1998-2000. European Cytogeneticists Association Newsletter No. 13, January 2004.
24. Shaffer LG, Bejjani BA. A cytogeneticist's perspective on genomic microarrays. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:221-6.
25. Gaudry P, Lebbar A, Choiset A, et al. Is rapid aneuploidy screening used alone acceptable in prenatal diagnosis? An evaluation of the possible role of ultrasound examination. Fetal Diagn Ther 2009;25:285-90.
26. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 1997;350:485-7.
27. Lim TH, Tan A, Goh VH. Enrichment of fetal trophoblasts and nucleated erythrocytes from maternal blood by an immunomagnetic colloid system. Hum Genet 1999;104:399-404.
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 QF-PCR. Reproduction 2003;126:279-97.
29. van Der Smagt JJ, Beverstock CG, Breuning MH, Kanhai HH, Vandenbussche FP. Assessment of prenatal karyotypes. Hum Reprod 2000;15:228-30.
30. Test and Technology Transfer Committee, American College of Medical Genetics, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3998, United States. Technical and clinical assessment of fluorescence in situ hybridization: an ACMG/ ASHG position statement. I. Technical considerations. Test and Technology Transfer Committee. Genet Med 2000;2:356-61.
31. Rickman L, Fiegler H, Shaw-Smith C, et al. Prenatal detection of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements by array CGH. J Med Genet 2006;43:353-61.
32. Simovich MJ, Yatsenko SA, Kang SH, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of a 9q34.3 microdeletion by array-CGH in a fetus with an apparently balanced translocation. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:1112-7.
33. Bi W, Breman AM, Venable SF, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis using uncultured amniocytes and oligonucleotide array CGH. Prenat Daign 2008;28:943-9.
34. Kleeman L, Bianchi DW, Shaffer LG, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:1213-7.