From microscopic chromosome observation in karyotyping to array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.108Keywords:
Prenatal diagnosis, array-CGH, karyotypingAbstract
Introduction: Karyotyping has been the gold standard for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis over the past 40 years. However, many articles and the first meta-analysis on the potential advantages of array-CGH (array comparative genomic hybridization) compared to karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis began to appear in 2011.
Objective: The objective of this article is to examine the use of array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis, and to show certain potential advantages and disadvantages of this molecular test over karyotyping, as well as its application by obstetricians, perinatologists and specialists in maternal-fetal medicine.
Conclusion: Array-CGH is a new option for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with anatomical abnormalities; it maybe used in all instances where an invasive intervention is warranted in the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities, and it may eventually replace karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis before this decade is out.
Author Biography
Wilmar Saldarriaga-Gil
References
Saldarriaga W, Ballesteros A. Diagnóstico prenatal de anomalías genéticas. En: Galvis C, Baquero H, Garcia G. Texto de Neonatología. Bogotá: Distribuna; 2012. p. 497-502.
Gratacos E, Delgado J. Procedimientos invasivos ecoguiados en medicina fetal. En: Gratacos E, Gómez R, Nicolaides K, Romero R, Cabero L. Medicina fetal. Buenos Aires, Madrid: Medica Panamericana; 2007. p. 129-35.
Saldarriaga W, Artuz M. Ayudas diagnósticas en obstetricia. En: Saldarriaga W, Artuz M. Fundamentos de ginecología y obstetricia. Cali: Programa editorial Universidad del Valle; 2010. p. 265-77.
Stembalska A, Slezak R, Pesz K, Gil J, Sasiadek M. Prenatal diagnosis - principles of diagnostic procedures and genetic counseling. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2007;45:S11-6.
Jacobson CB, Barter RH. Intrauterine diagnosis and management of genetic defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967;99:796-807.
Steele MW, Breg WR Jr. Chromosome analysis of human amniotic-fluid cells. Lancet. 1966;1:383-5.
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.
Armengol L, Nevado J, Serra-Juhé C, Plaja A, Mediano C, García-Santiago FA, et al. Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Genet. 2012;131:513-23.
Mori M, Mansilla E, García-Santiago F, Vallespín E, Palomares M, Martín R, et al. Diagnóstico prenatal y array-hibridación genómica comparada (CGH) (I). Gestaciones de elevado riesgo. Diagn Prenat. 2012;23:34-48.
Lapierre JM, Cacheux V, Luton D, Collot N, Oury JF, Aurias A, et al. Analysis of uncultured amniocytes by comparative genomic hybridization: a prospective prenatal study. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20:123-31.
Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, Shih JC, Lin TH, Su YN. Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies. BJOG 2012;119:614-25.
Strassberg M, Fruhman G, van den Veyver IB. Copynumber changes in prenatal diagnosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2011;11:579-92.
Shaffer LG, Dabell MP, Fisher AJ, Coppinger J, Bandholz AM, Ellison JW, et al. Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2012;2:976-85.
Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, 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.
Breman A, Pursley AN, Hixson P, Bi W, Ward P, Bacino CA, et al. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:351-61.
Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S, Spizzichino L, Bono S, Sessa M, 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.
Gardner M, Southerland G, Shaffer L. Autosomal reciprocal traslocations. En: Gardner RJM. Chromosome anormalities and genetic counseling. Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 67-111.
Brady PD, Devriendt K, Deprest J, Vermeesch JR. Array-Based Approaches in Prenatal Diagnosis. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;838:151-71.
Mansfield ES. Diagnosis of Down syndrome and other aneuploidies using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and small tandem repeat polymorphisms. Hum Mol Genet. 1993;2:43-50.
Pertl B, Yau SC, Sherlock J, Davies AF, Mathew CG, Adinolfi M. Rapid molecular method for prenatal detection of Down’s syndrome. Lancet. 1994; 343:1197-8.
Schouten JP, McElgunn CJ, Waaijer R, Zwijnenburg D, Diepvens F, Pals G. Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ligationdependent probe amplification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;15;30:e57.
Bayani J, Thorner P, Zielenska M, Pandita A, Beatty B, Squire JA. Application of a simplified comparative genomic hybridization technique to screen for gene amplification in pediatric solid tumors. Pediatr Pathol Lab Med. 1995;15:831-44.
Erdel M, Duba HC, Verdorfer I, Lingenhel A, Geiger R, Gutenberger KH, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization reveals a partial de novo trisomy 6q23-qter in an infant with congenital malformations: delineation of the phenotype. Hum Genet. 1997;99:596-601.
ACOG. Comittee Opinion No. 446: array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1161-3.
Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, Biesecker LG, Brothman AR, Carter NP, 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.
Regier DA, Friedman JM, Marra CA. Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86:765-72.
Shaffer LG, Rosenfeld JA, Dabell MP, Coppinger J, Bandholz AM, Ellison JW, et al. Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:986-95
Lee CN, Lin SY, Shih JC, Su YN. Authors’ response to: The clinical utility and indications of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. BJOG. 2013;120:120.
Querejeta ME, Nieva B, Navajas J, Cigudosa JC, Suela J. Diagnóstico prenatal y array-CGH II: gestaciones de bajo riesgo. Diagn Prenat. 2012;23:49-55.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
