Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal mosaicism in over 1600 cases using array comparative genomic hybridization as a first line test

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 478-486

  Carey, Louise ^a   Scott, Fergus ^b,c   Murphy, Kristi ^b   Mansfield, Nerida ^a   Barahona, Paulette ^a   Leigh, Don ^a   Robertson, Rob ^b   Mclennan, Andrew ^b,d  

^a Genea   (Australia)

^b Sydney Ultrasound for Women   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d University of Sydney   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; AMNION FLUID; ARRAY COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; ARTICLE; CHORION VILLUS; CHROMOSOME 13; CHROMOSOME 18; CHROMOSOME 21; CHROMOSOME MOSAICISM; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; CONFINED PLACENTAL MOSAICISM; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; KARYOTYPING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE FLUORESCENT POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SEX CHROMOSOME MOSAICISM; TRUE FETAL MOSAICISM; X CHROMOSOME; Y CHROMOSOME; AUSTRALIA; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; MOSAICISM; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; KARYOTYPING; MOSAICISM; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION;

EID: 84898834818     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4332     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Kaminsky EB, Kaul V, Paschall J, et al. An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities. Genet Med 2011;13:777-84.
2. Mefford HC, Batshaw ML, Hoffman EP. Genomics, intellectual disability, and autism. N Engl J Med 2012;366:733-43.
3. Shaffer LG, Bejjani BA. The use of microarray-based molecular cytogenetic methods for the identification of chromosome abnormalities in the pediatric population. Pediatr Ann 2009;38: 440-7.
4. Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010;86:749-64.
5. Manning M, Hudgins L. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med 2010;12(11):742-5.
6. Novelli A, Grati FR, Ballarati L, et al. Microarray application in prenatal diagnosis: a position statement from the cytogenetics working group of the Italian Society of human genetics (SIGU), November 2011. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:384-8.
7. Committee ACOG. Opinion No. 581: array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122(6):1374-7.
8. Friedman JM. High-resolution array genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29:20-8.
9. McGillivray G, Rosenfeld JA, McKinlay Gardner RJ, Gillam LH. Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 2012;32: 389-95.
10. Gardner RJM, Sutherland GR, Shaffer LG. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counseling, Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics (3rd edn). Oxford Press: New York, 2012.
11. Hahnemann JM, Vejerslev LO. European collaborative research on mosaicism in CVS (EUCROMIC)-fetal and extrafetal cell lineages in 192 gestations with CVS mosaicism involving single autosomal trisomy. Am J Med Genet 1997;70:179-87.
12. Hahnemann JM, Vejerslev LO. Accuracy of cytogenetic findings on chorionic villus sampling (CVS)-diagnostic consequences of CVS mosaicism and non-mosaic discrepancy in centres contributing to EUCROMIC 1986-1992. Prenat Diagn 1997;17:801-20.
13. Hsu LYF, Yu MT, Richkind KE, et al. Incidence and significance of chromosome mosaicism involving an autosomal structural abnormality diagnosed prenatally through amniocentesis: a collaborative study. Prenat Diagn 1996;16:1-28.
14. Hook EB. Exclusion of chromosomal mosaicism: tables of 90%, 95% and 99% confidence limits and comments on use. Am J Hum Genet 1977; 29:94-7.
15. Donaghue C, Mann K, Docherty Z, Ogilvie CM. Detection of mosaicism for primary trisomies in prenatal samples by QF-PCR and karyotype analysis. Prenat Diagn 2005;25: 61-72.
16. Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S, et al. Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:1270-82.
17. Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Fisher AJ, et al. Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2012;32: 976-85.
18. Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, et al. Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort of 3171 pregnancies. BJOG 2012;119(5):614-25.
19. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2175-84.
20. Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R. Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 1991;10:506-13.
21. 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.
22. Scott F, Murphy K, Carey L, et al. Prenatal diagnosis using combined quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis as a first line test: results from over 1000 consecutive cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:500-7.
23. Barch MJ, Knutsen L, Spurbeck JL. The AGT Cytogenetics Laboratory Manual (3rd edn). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia NY, 1997.
24. Grati FR, Grimi B, Frascoli G, et al. Confirmation of mosaicism and uniparental disomy in amniocytes, after detection of mosaic chromosome abnormalities in chorionic villi. Eur J Med Genet 2006;14:282-8.
25. Wilson MG, Lin MS, Fujimoto A, et al. Chromosome mosaicism in 6000 amniocenteses. Am J Med Genet 1989;32:506-13.
26. Goldberg JD, Wohlferd MM. Incidence and outcome of chromosomal mosaicism found at the time of chorionic villus sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:1349-52; discussion 1352-3.
27. Benn P, Hsu LY, Perlis T, Schonhaut A. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosome mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 1984;4(1):1-9.
28. Breman A, Pursley AN, Hixson P, et al. Prenatal chromosome microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:351-61.
29. Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, et al. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:610-20.
30. Ballif BC, Rorem EA, Sundin K, et al. Detection of low-level mosaicism by array CGH in routine diagnostic specimens. Am J Med Genet 2006;140:2757-67.
31. Cheung S, Shaw C, Scott D, et al. Microarray-based CGH detects chromosomal mosaicism not revealed by conventional cytogenetics. Am J Med Genet A 2007;143A:1679-86.
32. Hoang S, Ahn J, Mann K, et al. Detection of mosaicism for genome imbalance in a cohort of 3, 042 clinical cases using an oligonucleotide array CGH platform. Eur J Med Genet 2011;54(2):121-9.
33. Menten B, Maas N, Thienpont B, et al. Emerging patterns of cryptic chromosomal imbalances in patients with idiopathic mental retardation and multiple congenital anomalies: a new series of 140 patients and review of the literature. J Med Genet 2006;43(8):625-33.
34. Xiang B, Li A, Valentin D, et al. Analytical and clinical validity of whole- genome oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization for pediatric patients with mental retardation and developmental delay. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:1942-54.
35. National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council. Requirements for Cytogenetic Testing. Australia: Department of Health and Ageing, 2007.
36. Holgado E, Liddle S, Ballard T, Levett L. Incidence of placental mosaicism leading to discrepant results between QF-PCR and karyotyping in 22, 825 chorionic villus samples. Prenat Diagn 2011;31(11):1029-38.
37. Nowinski GP, Van Dyke DL, Tilley BC, et al. The frequency of aneuploidy in cultured lymphocytes is correlated with age and gender but not with reproductive history. Am J Hum Genet 1990;46:1101-11.
38. Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet 2004;74(6):1168-74.
39. Wolstenholme J, Rooney DE, Davison EV. Confined placental mosaicism, IUGR, and adverse pregnancy outcome: a controlled retrospective U.K. collaborative survey. Prenat Diagn 1994;14:345-61.
40. Mann K, Kabba M, Donaghue C, et al. Analysis of a chromosomally mosaic placenta to assess the cell populations in dissociated villi: implications for QF-PCR aneuploidy testing. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:287-9. (Letter to the editor).
41. Diego-Alvarez D, Ramos-Corrrales C, Garcia-Hoyos M, et al. Double trisomy in spontaneous miscarriages: cytogenetics and molecular approach. Hum Reprod 2006;4;958-66.
42. Reddy KS. Double trisomy in spontaneous abortions. Hum Genet 1997; 3;339-45.