Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal imbalances

Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Volumn 99, Issue 4, 2014, Pages

  Wellesley, Diana G ^a   Lucassen, Anneke ^a,b  

^a PRINCESS ANNE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHROMOSOME DISORDER; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SERVICE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; KARYOTYPING; PATHOGENICITY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; PARENTS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 84902363307     PISSN: 13592998     EISSN: 14682052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304835     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Sagoo GS, Butterworth AS, Sanderson S, et al. Array CGH in patients with learning disability (mental retardation) and congenital anomalies: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies and 13,926 subjects. Genet Med 2009;11:139-46.
2. Tadros SM, Morrogh D, Scott R. What is array CGH? Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2013;98:134-35.
3. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2175-84.
4. Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, et al. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:1119-23.
5. Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Rosenfeld JA, et al. Referral patterns for microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:344-50.
6. Crawford G, Foulds N, Fenwick A, et al. Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genet Med 2013;15:896-9.
7. Crawford G, Fenwick A, Lucassen A. A more fi tting term in the incidental findings debate: one term does not fit all situations. Eur J Hum Genet 2013. [published Online First: Epub Date] doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.266
8. British Society of Genetic Medicine. Guidelines on the Genetic testing of Children. Secondary Guidelines on the Genetic testing of Children, 2010. http://www.bsgm.org.uk/media/678741/gtoc-booklet-final-new.pdf
9. Lucassen A, Widdershoven G, Metselaar S, et al. Genetic Testing of children: the need for a family perspective. AJOB 2014;14:26-8.
10. Bui TH, Raymond FL, Van den Veyver IB. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: should incidental findings arising from prenatal testing always be reported to patients? Prenat Diagn 2014;34:12-17.
11. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565-74.
12. Wright CF, Middleton A, Burton H, et al. Policy challenges of clinical genome sequencing. BMJ 2013;347:f6845.
13. van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21(Suppl 1):S1-5.
14. Davies K. The $1,000,000 genome interpretation. Bio-IT World 2010.
15. Bunnik EM, Schermer MH, Janssens AC. Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues. BMC Med Ethics 2011;12:11.
16. Coppinger J, McDonald-McGinn D, Zackai E, et al. Identification of familial and de novo microduplications of 22q11.21-q11.23 distal to the 22q11.21 microdeletion syndrome region. Hum Mol Genet 2009;18:1377-83.
17. Wincent J, Schoumans J, Anderlid BM. De novo deletion of chromosome 11q13.4-q14.3 in a boy with microcephaly, ptosis and developmental delay. Eur J Med Genet 2010;53:50-3.
18. Rosenfeld JA, Coe PC, Eichler EE, et al. Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genet Med 2013;6:478-81.
19. Wapner RJ, Driscoll DA, Simpson JL. Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:396-400.
20. Vetro A, Bouman K, Hastings R, et al. The introduction of arrays in prenatal diagnosis: a special challenge. Hum Mutat 2012;33:923-9.
21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1374-7.
22. Joint Committee of Medical Genetics. Consent and confidentiality in clinical genetic practice. In: A Lucassen and A Hall. Guidance on genetic testing and sharing genetic information. 2nd edn. UK: Royal College of Physicians, 2011.
23. Ganesamoorthy D, Bruno DL, McGillivray G, et al. Meeting the challenge of interpreting high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism array data in prenatal diagnosis: does increased diagnostic power outweigh the dilemma of rare variants? BJOG 2013;120:594-606.
24. Joint Committee for Genomics in Medicine. Secondary. http://www.bsgm.org. uk/about-us/joint-committee-on-genomics-in-medicine-(formerly-the-joint- committee-for-medical-genetics)/
25. Vanakker O, Vilain C, Janssens K, et al. Implementation of genomic arrays in prenatal diagnosis: The Belgian approach to meet the challenges. Eur J Med Genet 2014;57:151-6.
26. Yurkiewicz IR, Korf BR, Lehmann LS. Prenatal whole-genome sequencing - is the quest to know a fetus's future ethical? N Engl J Med 2014;370:195-7.