Prenatal diagnosis of fetuses conceived by assisted reproductive technology by karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis.
Assisted reproductive technology
Chromosomal microarray analysis
DNA copy number variation
Karyotyping
Prenatal diagnosis
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
05
10
2022
accepted:
12
12
2022
entrez:
23
1
2023
pubmed:
24
1
2023
medline:
25
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Invasive prenatal evaluation by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotyping might represent an important option in pregnant women, but limited reports have applied CMA and karyotyping of fetuses conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART). This study aimed to examine the value of CMA and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis after ART. This retrospective study included all singleton fetuses conceived by ART from January 2015 to December 2021. Anomalies prenatally diagnosed based on karyotyping and CMA were analyzed. Prevalence rates for various CMA and karyotyping results were stratified based on specific testing indications including isolated-and non-isolated ART groups. The rates of CMA findings with clinical significance (pathogenic/likely pathogenic) and karyotype anomalies were assessed and compared to those of local control individuals with naturally conceived pregnancies and without medical indications. In total, 224 subjects were assessed by karyotyping and CMA. In the examined patients, chromosomal and karyotype abnormality rates were 3.57% (8/224) and 8.93% (20/224), respectively. This finding indicated a 5.35% (12/224)-incremental rate of abnormal CMA was obtained over karyotype analysis ( Prenatal diagnosis including karyotyping and CMA is recommended for fetuses conceived by ART, with or without ultrasound findings.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Invasive prenatal evaluation by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotyping might represent an important option in pregnant women, but limited reports have applied CMA and karyotyping of fetuses conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART). This study aimed to examine the value of CMA and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis after ART.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This retrospective study included all singleton fetuses conceived by ART from January 2015 to December 2021. Anomalies prenatally diagnosed based on karyotyping and CMA were analyzed. Prevalence rates for various CMA and karyotyping results were stratified based on specific testing indications including isolated-and non-isolated ART groups. The rates of CMA findings with clinical significance (pathogenic/likely pathogenic) and karyotype anomalies were assessed and compared to those of local control individuals with naturally conceived pregnancies and without medical indications.
Results
UNASSIGNED
In total, 224 subjects were assessed by karyotyping and CMA. In the examined patients, chromosomal and karyotype abnormality rates were 3.57% (8/224) and 8.93% (20/224), respectively. This finding indicated a 5.35% (12/224)-incremental rate of abnormal CMA was obtained over karyotype analysis (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Prenatal diagnosis including karyotyping and CMA is recommended for fetuses conceived by ART, with or without ultrasound findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36684682
doi: 10.7717/peerj.14678
pii: 14678
pmc: PMC9854383
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14678Informations de copyright
©2023 Guo et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Jul;36(7):686-92
pubmed: 27221052
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;54(4):442-451
pubmed: 31124209
Genome Res. 2019 Mar;29(3):367-382
pubmed: 30683754
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2132602
pubmed: 34735014
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 24;11(1):6752
pubmed: 33762699
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 6;367(23):2175-84
pubmed: 23215555
Genet Med. 2013 Jun;15(6):478-81
pubmed: 23258348
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):610-20
pubmed: 23512800
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 May;57(5):813-820
pubmed: 32202684
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Oct;32(10):976-85
pubmed: 22865506
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 18;6(1):e010002
pubmed: 26781507
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):38-44
pubmed: 26581188
Genet Med. 2018 Jan;20(1):128-131
pubmed: 28726807
Hum Reprod. 2017 Nov 1;32(11):2348-2357
pubmed: 29040498
Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Apr;36(4):455-458
pubmed: 29503211
Hum Reprod. 2020 Sep 1;35(9):2149-2162
pubmed: 32772109
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020 Dec 11;18(1):123
pubmed: 33308238
Clin Epigenetics. 2019 Feb 7;11(1):21
pubmed: 30732658