Changes in and efficacies of indications for invasive prenatal diagnosis of cytogenomic abnormalities: 13 years of experience in a single center

Medical Science Monitor

Volumn 21, Issue , 2015, Pages 1942-1948

  Meng, Jinlai ^a,b   Matarese, Chelsea ^a   Crivello, Julianna ^a,c   Wilcox, Katherine ^a   Wang, Dongmei ^a   DiAdamo, Autumn ^a   Xu, Fang ^a   Li, Peining ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SHANDONG PROVINCIAL HOSPITAL AFFILIATED TO SHANDONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative genomic hybridization; Genetic counseling; Minimally invasive; Prenatal diagnosis; Surgical procedures

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNION FLUID ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; CHORION VILLUS SAMPLING; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CHROMOSOME DISORDER; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; CYSTIC LYMPHANGIOMA; CYTOGENETICS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGEORGE SYNDROME; DNA SCREENING; DOWN SYNDROME; ECHOGENIC BOWEL; ECHOGRAPHY; FALLOT TETRALOGY; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FETUS DEATH; FETUS MALFORMATION; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC DISORDER; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; INTRAUTERINE GROWTH RETARDATION; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL AGE; MATERNAL SERUM SCREENING TEST; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; PREGNANCY;

CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 84936870341     PISSN: 12341010     EISSN: 16433750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.893870     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Simpson JL: Invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis: any future left? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2012; 26(5): 625-38
2. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol, 2007; 109(1): 217-27
3. Wei Y, Xu F, Li P: Technology-driven and evidence-based genomic analysis for integrated pediatric and prenatal genetics evaluation. J Genet Genomics, 2013; 40(1): 1-14
4. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 446: array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol, 2009; 114(5): 1161-63
5. Dar H, Zuck C, Friedman S et al: Chorionic villous sampling: differences in patients' perspectives according to indication, ethnic group and religion. Isr Med Assoc J, 2006; 8(8): 536-38
6. Bot-Robin V, Sendon S, Bourzoufi K et al: Maternal anxiety and pain during prenatal diagnostic techniques: a prospective study. Prenat Diagn, 2012; 32(6): 562-68
7. Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, et al: Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med, 2012; 14(11): 905-13
8. Chiu RW, Chan KC, Gao Y et al: Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2008; 105(51): 20458-63
9. Liao C, Zhengfeng X, Zhang K: DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med, 2014; 371(6): 577-78
10. Hardisty EE, Vora NL: Advances in genetic prenatal diagnosis and screening. Curr Opin Pediatr, 2014; 26(6): 634-38
11. Ciach K, Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K: Influence of place of residence on indications for genetic amniocentesis in the Pomeranian region of Poland before and after introduction of the Prenatal Screening Program in 2008. Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 720-24
12. Li P, Pomianowski P, DiMaio MS et al: Genomic characterization of prenatally detected chromosomal structural abnormalities using oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization. Am J Med Genet A, 2011; 155A(7): 1605-15
13. Benn PA, Egan JF, Fang M et al: Changes in the utilization of prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol, 2004; 103(6): 1255-60
14. Xiang B, Hemingway S, Qumsiyeh M et al: CytoAccess: A relational laboratory information management system for a clinical cytogenetics laboratory. J Assoc Genet Technol, 2006; 32(4): 168-70
15. Chang YW, Chang CM, Sung PL et al: An overview of a 30-year experience with amniocentesis in a single tertiary medical center in Taiwan. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2012; 51(2): 206-11
16. Siljee JE, Knegt AC, Knapen MF et al: Positive predictive values for detection of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and termination of pregnancy rates after referral for advanced maternal age, first trimester combined test or ultrasound abnormalities in a national screening programme (2007-2009). Prenat Diagn, 2014; 34(3): 259-64
17. Xu F, Li L, Schulz VP et al: Cytogenomic mapping and bioinformatic mining reveal interacting brain expressed genes for intellectual disability. Mol Cytogenet, 2014; 7(1): 4
18. Vlková B, Szemes T, Minárik G et al: Advances in the research of fetal DNA in maternal plasma for noninvasive prenatal diagnostics. Med Sci Monit, 2010; 16(4): RA85-91
19. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG et al: ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med, 2013; 15(5): 395-98
20. Jiang F, Ren J, Chen F et al: Noninvasive Fetal Trisomy (NIFTY) test: an advanced noninvasive prenatal diagnosis methodology for fetal autosomal and sex chromosomal aneuploidies. BMC Med Genomics, 2012; 5: 57
21. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD et al: Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol, 2012; 119(5): 890-901
22. Xu ZY, Xie JS, Meng JL et al: Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: A comparison of cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) based screening and fetal nucleated red blood cell (fnRBC) initiated testing. NAJ Med Sci, 2013; 6: 194-99