Should prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis be offered for isolated fetal growth restriction? A French multicenter study.


Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2021
Historique:
received: 19 02 2021
revised: 07 05 2021
accepted: 15 05 2021
pubmed: 1 6 2021
medline: 18 12 2021
entrez: 31 5 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Compared with standard karyotype, chromosomal microarray analysis improves the detection of genetic anomalies and is thus recommended in many prenatal indications. However, evidence is still lacking on the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in cases of isolated fetal growth restriction. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of copy number variants detected by chromosomal microarray analysis and the incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis compared with karyotype in the detection of genetic abnormalities in fetuses with isolated fetal growth restriction. This retrospective study included all singleton fetuses diagnosed with fetal growth restriction and no structural ultrasound anomalies and referred to 13 French fetal medicine centers over 1 year in 2016. Fetal growth restriction was defined as an estimated fetal weight of <tenth percentile for gestational age identified in ultrasound reports. For this analysis, we selected fetuses who underwent invasive genetic testing with karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis results. Data were obtained from medical records and ultrasound databases and postmortem and placental examination reports in case of spontaneous stillbirths and terminations of pregnancy. Following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines, copy number variants were classified into 5 groups as following: pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variant of unknown significance, likely benign, and benign. Of 682 referred fetuses diagnosed with isolated fetal growth restriction, both karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis were performed in 146 fetuses. Overall, the detection rate of genetic anomalies found by chromosomal microarray analysis was estimated to be 7.5% (11 of 146 [95% confidence interval, 3.3-11.8]), including 10 copy number variants classified as pathogenic and 1 copy number variant classified as likely pathogenic. Among the 139 fetuses with normal karyotype, 5 were detected with pathogenic and likely pathogenic copy number variants, resulting in an incremental yield of 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.5-6.6) in chromosomal microarray analysis compared with karyotype. All fetuses detected with pathogenic or likely pathogenic copy number variants resulted in terminations of pregnancy. In addition, 3 fetuses with normal karyotype were detected with a variant of unknown significance (2.1%). Among the 7 fetuses with abnormal karyotype, chromosomal microarray analysis did not detect trisomy 18 mosaicism in all fetuses. Our study found that compared with karyotype, chromosomal microarray analysis improves the detection of genetic anomalies in fetuses diagnosed with isolated fetal growth restriction. These results support the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in addition to karyotype for isolated fetal growth restriction.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Compared with standard karyotype, chromosomal microarray analysis improves the detection of genetic anomalies and is thus recommended in many prenatal indications. However, evidence is still lacking on the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in cases of isolated fetal growth restriction.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to estimate the proportion of copy number variants detected by chromosomal microarray analysis and the incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis compared with karyotype in the detection of genetic abnormalities in fetuses with isolated fetal growth restriction.
STUDY DESIGN
This retrospective study included all singleton fetuses diagnosed with fetal growth restriction and no structural ultrasound anomalies and referred to 13 French fetal medicine centers over 1 year in 2016. Fetal growth restriction was defined as an estimated fetal weight of <tenth percentile for gestational age identified in ultrasound reports. For this analysis, we selected fetuses who underwent invasive genetic testing with karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis results. Data were obtained from medical records and ultrasound databases and postmortem and placental examination reports in case of spontaneous stillbirths and terminations of pregnancy. Following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines, copy number variants were classified into 5 groups as following: pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variant of unknown significance, likely benign, and benign.
RESULTS
Of 682 referred fetuses diagnosed with isolated fetal growth restriction, both karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis were performed in 146 fetuses. Overall, the detection rate of genetic anomalies found by chromosomal microarray analysis was estimated to be 7.5% (11 of 146 [95% confidence interval, 3.3-11.8]), including 10 copy number variants classified as pathogenic and 1 copy number variant classified as likely pathogenic. Among the 139 fetuses with normal karyotype, 5 were detected with pathogenic and likely pathogenic copy number variants, resulting in an incremental yield of 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.5-6.6) in chromosomal microarray analysis compared with karyotype. All fetuses detected with pathogenic or likely pathogenic copy number variants resulted in terminations of pregnancy. In addition, 3 fetuses with normal karyotype were detected with a variant of unknown significance (2.1%). Among the 7 fetuses with abnormal karyotype, chromosomal microarray analysis did not detect trisomy 18 mosaicism in all fetuses.
CONCLUSION
Our study found that compared with karyotype, chromosomal microarray analysis improves the detection of genetic anomalies in fetuses diagnosed with isolated fetal growth restriction. These results support the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in addition to karyotype for isolated fetal growth restriction.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34058167
pii: S0002-9378(21)00603-7
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.05.035
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Observational Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

676.e1-676.e15

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Isabelle Monier (I)

Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center, Université de Paris, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Paris, France; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Antoine Béclère Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Saclay University, Clamart, France. Electronic address: isabelle.monier@inserm.fr.

Aline Receveur (A)

Department of Cytogenetics and Reproductive Biology, Antoine Béclère Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Saclay University, Clamart, France.

Véronique Houfflin-Debarge (V)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeanne de Flandres University Hospital, Lille, France.

Valérie Goua (V)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Poitiers University Hospital, Poitiers, France.

Vanina Castaigne (V)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France.

Jean-Marie Jouannic (JM)

Fetal Medicine Department, Armand-Trousseau Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Eve Mousty (E)

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.

Anne-Hélène Saliou (AH)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France.

Hanane Bouchghoul (H)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bicêtre Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Saclay University, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.

Thierry Rousseau (T)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dijon University Hospital, Dijon, France.

Anne-Sylvie Valat (AS)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lens Hospital, Lens, France.

Marion Groussolles (M)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Paule de Viguier Hospital, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Florent Fuchs (F)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Montpellier University Hospital Center, Montpellier, France.

Guillaume Benoist (G)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Caen University Hospital Center, Caen, France.

Sophie Degre (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Le Havre University Hospital Center, Le Havre, France.

Jérôme Massardier (J)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron, France.

Vassilis Tsatsaris (V)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.

Pascale Kleinfinger (P)

Laboratoire CERBA, Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône, France.

Jennifer Zeitlin (J)

Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center, Université de Paris, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Paris, France.

Alexandra Benachi (A)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Antoine Béclère Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Saclay University, Clamart, France.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH