Comprehensive genetic analysis of pregnancy loss by chromosomal microarrays: outcomes, benefits, and challenges

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 83-89

  Sahoo, Trilochan ^a   Dzidic, Natasa ^a   Strecker, Michelle N ^a   Commander, Sara ^a   Travis, Mary K ^a   Doherty, Charles ^a   Weslie Tyson, R ^b   Mendoza, Arturo E ^c   Stephenson, Mary ^d   Dise, Craig A ^e   Benito, Carlos W ^e   Ziadie, Mandolin S ^f   Hovanes, Karine ^a  

^a CombiMatrix Diagnostics ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c SHARP MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES SYSTEM   (United States)

^e MORRISTOWN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f MEMORIAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

aneuploidy; chromosomal microarray; chromosome abnormality; products of conception; recurrent pregnancy loss

Indexed keywords

FORMALDEHYDE; PARAFFIN;

ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; CONCEPTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS TISSUE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HOMOZYGOSITY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KARYOTYPING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; POLYPLOIDY; PREGNANCY LOSS; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; AGE; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; MIDDLE AGED; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES;

ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANEUPLOIDY; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; KARYOTYPING; MIDDLE AGED; PARAFFIN EMBEDDING; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 85009168663     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.69     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1103-1111.
2. Ford HB, Schust DJ. Recurrent pregnancy loss: etiology, diagnosis, and therapy. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:76-83.
3. Simpson JL, Juneau ERM. Pregnancy loss. In: Gabe SG, Nimbly JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, 6th edn. Elsevier Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, 2012.
4. Menasha J, Levy B, Hirschhorn K, Kardon NB. Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study. Genet Med 2005;7:251-263.
5. Yusuf RZ, Naeem R. Cytogenetic abnormalities in products of conception: a relationship revisited. Am J Reprod Immunol 2004;52:88-96.
6. Nagaishi M, Yamamoto T, Iinuma K, Shimomura K, Berend SA, Knops J. Chromosome abnormalities identified in 347 spontaneous abortions collected in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2004;30:237-241.
7. Dória S, Carvalho F, Ramalho C, et al. An efficient protocol for the detection of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous miscarriages or foetal deaths. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;147:144-150.
8. Shearer BM, Thorland EC, Carlson AW, Jalal SM, Ketterling RP. Reflex fluorescent in situ hybridization testing for unsuccessful product of conception cultures: a retrospective analysis of 5555 samples attempted by conventional cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Genet Med 2011;13:545-552.
9. Reddy UM, Page GP, Saade GR. The role of DNA microarrays in the evaluation of fetal death. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:371-375.
10. Gao J, Liu C, Yao F, et al. Array-based comparative genomic hybridization is more informative than conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the analysis of first-trimester spontaneous abortion. Mol Cytogenet 2012;5:33.
11. Stephenson M, Kutteh W. Evaluation and management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007;50:132-145.
12. Reddy UM, Page GP, Saade GR, et al.; NICHD Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network. Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2185-2193.
13. Carp H, Toder V, Aviram A, Daniely M, Mashiach S, Barkai G. Karyotype of the abortus in recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2001;75:678-682.
14. Zhang YX, Zhang YP, Gu Y, et al. Genetic analysis of first-trimester miscarriages with a combination of cytogenetic karyotyping, microsatellite genotyping and arrayCGH. Clin Genet 2009;75:133-140.
15. Raca G, Artzer A, Thorson L, et al. Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in the genetic evaluation of stillbirth. Am J Med Genet A 2009;149A:2437-2443.
16. Lomax B, Tang S, Separovic E, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization in combination with flow cytometry improves results of cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:1516-1521.
17. Bell KA, Van Deerlin PG, Haddad BR, Feinberg RF. Cytogenetic diagnosis of "normal 46,XX" karyotypes in spontaneous abortions frequently may be misleading. Fertil Steril 1999;71:334-341.
18. Robberecht C, Schuddinck V, Fryns JP, Vermeesch JR. Diagnosis of miscarriages by molecular karyotyping: benefits and pitfalls. Genet Med 2009;11:646-654.
19. van den Berg MM, van Maarle MC, van Wely M, Goddijn M. Genetics of early miscarriage. Biochim Biophys Acta 2012;1822:1951-1959.
20. Fritz B, Hallermann C, Olert J, et al. Cytogenetic analyses of culture failures by comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH)-re-evaluation of chromosome aberration rates in early spontaneous abortions. Eur J Hum Genet 2001;9:539-547.
21. Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter DH, Lese Martin C. Comparative genomic hybridization-Array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet 2004;74:1168-1174.
22. Ballif BC, Kashork CD, Saleki R, et al. Detecting sex chromosome anomalies and common triploidies in products of conception by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:333-339.
23. Shimokawa O, Harada N, Miyake N, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis in first-trimester spontaneous abortions with 'normal' karyotypes. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:1931-1935.
24. Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-Analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:6-14.
25. Levy B, Sigurjonsson S, Pettersen B, et al. Genomic imbalance in products of conception: single-nucleotide polymorphism chromosomal microarray analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124(2 Pt 1):202-209.
26. Wang BT, Chong TP, Boyar FZ, et al. Abnormalities in spontaneous abortions detected by G-banding and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) at a national reference laboratory. Mol Cytogenet 2014;7:33.
27. Kudesia R, Li M, Smith J, Patel A, Williams Z. Rescue karyotyping: a case series of array-based comparative genomic hybridization evaluation of archival conceptual tissue. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014;12:19.
28. Dhillon RK, Hillman SC, Morris RK, et al. Additional information from chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) over conventional karyotyping when diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities in miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-Analysis. BJOG 2014;121:11-21.
29. Russo R, Sessa AM, Fumo R, Gaeta S. Chromosomal anomalies in early spontaneous abortions: interphase FISH analysis on 855 FFPE first trimester abortions. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:186-191.
30. 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;122:1374-1377.
31. Regan L, Backos M, Rai R. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent first-trimester and second-trimester miscarriage. RCOG Greentop Guideline No. 17. April 2010. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/ documents/guidelines/gtg-17.pdf.
32. Foyouzi N, Cedars MI, Huddleston HG. Cost-effectiveness of cytogenetic evaluation of products of conception in the patient with a second pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril 2012;98:151-155.
33. Bardos J, Hercz D, Friedenthal J, Missmer SA, Williams Z. A national survey on public perceptions of miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:1313-1320.
34. Whitley E, Doyle P, Roman E, De Stavola B. The effect of reproductive history on future pregnancy outcomes. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2863-2867.
35. Simpson, J, Carson, S. Genetic and nongenetic causes of pregnancy loss. Global Library of Women's Medicine, 2013. http://www.glowm.com/section-view/ item/318.