Fetal genetic findings by chromosomal microarray analysis and karyotyping for fetal growth restriction without structural malformations at a territory referral center: 10-year experience.
Cytogenetic karyotyping
Fetal growth restriction (FGR)
Maternal serum screening
Single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP array)
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jan 2023
26 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
04
08
2022
accepted:
19
01
2023
entrez:
26
1
2023
pubmed:
27
1
2023
medline:
31
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prenatal invasive genetic testing is commonly recommended to pregnancies of early-onset FGR or FGR combined with a structural defect. Our study aimed to explore the genetic findings for FGR without structural malformations according to cytogenetic karyotyping and single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP array) technology over a 10-year period. A total of 488 pregnancies diagnosed with FGR without structural malformation were retrospectively reviewed. Cytogenetic karyotyping was performed on all the subjects, and SNP array was available from 272 of them. Based on the gestational age at onset, the cohort was classified into four groups: ≤ 24, 25-28, 29-32, and > 32 weeks of gestation. According to the ultrasound findings, they were grouped into isolated FGR, FGR with soft markers, and FGR with non-structural anomalies. In pregnancies of young maternal age, based on the results of maternal serum screening (MSS), they were categorized into high-risk and low-risk MSS groups. Nineteen (3.9%) cases of chromosomal abnormalities were detected by cytogenetic karyotyping, including 11 cases of numerical abnormalities, 5 cases of structural abnormalities, and 3 cases of mosaicism. Trisomy 21 was the most frequent abnormality. Abnormal karyotypes were more frequently observed in cases diagnosed at ≤ 24 weeks (7.2%) than those in any other group. Among pregnancies with normal karyotype, an incremental yield of 4.2% were revealed by SNP array technology regarding clinically relevant aberrations. The additional detection rates by SNP array in cases diagnosed at ≤ 24 weeks (6.5%), cases with soft markers (9.5%), and cases with high-risk MSS (12.0%) were higher than those in other groups within each classification. All the cases with abnormal karyotypes and 7 out of 11 pregnancies with clinically relevant anomalies revealed by SNP array alone resulted in pregnancy terminations. Chromosome abnormality is an important etiology for FGR with no associated structural malformations, and plays a crucial role in pregnancies decision-making. SNP array improves the detection of genetic anomalies especially in FGR diagnosed at ≤ 24 weeks, FGR combined with soft makers, and FGR combined with high-risk MSS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prenatal invasive genetic testing is commonly recommended to pregnancies of early-onset FGR or FGR combined with a structural defect. Our study aimed to explore the genetic findings for FGR without structural malformations according to cytogenetic karyotyping and single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP array) technology over a 10-year period.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 488 pregnancies diagnosed with FGR without structural malformation were retrospectively reviewed. Cytogenetic karyotyping was performed on all the subjects, and SNP array was available from 272 of them. Based on the gestational age at onset, the cohort was classified into four groups: ≤ 24, 25-28, 29-32, and > 32 weeks of gestation. According to the ultrasound findings, they were grouped into isolated FGR, FGR with soft markers, and FGR with non-structural anomalies. In pregnancies of young maternal age, based on the results of maternal serum screening (MSS), they were categorized into high-risk and low-risk MSS groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nineteen (3.9%) cases of chromosomal abnormalities were detected by cytogenetic karyotyping, including 11 cases of numerical abnormalities, 5 cases of structural abnormalities, and 3 cases of mosaicism. Trisomy 21 was the most frequent abnormality. Abnormal karyotypes were more frequently observed in cases diagnosed at ≤ 24 weeks (7.2%) than those in any other group. Among pregnancies with normal karyotype, an incremental yield of 4.2% were revealed by SNP array technology regarding clinically relevant aberrations. The additional detection rates by SNP array in cases diagnosed at ≤ 24 weeks (6.5%), cases with soft markers (9.5%), and cases with high-risk MSS (12.0%) were higher than those in other groups within each classification. All the cases with abnormal karyotypes and 7 out of 11 pregnancies with clinically relevant anomalies revealed by SNP array alone resulted in pregnancy terminations.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Chromosome abnormality is an important etiology for FGR with no associated structural malformations, and plays a crucial role in pregnancies decision-making. SNP array improves the detection of genetic anomalies especially in FGR diagnosed at ≤ 24 weeks, FGR combined with soft makers, and FGR combined with high-risk MSS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36703098
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05394-y
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-05394-y
pmc: PMC9878785
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
73Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Cell Mol Med. 2021 May 27;:
pubmed: 34042265
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 May;295(5):1061-1077
pubmed: 28285426
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec;225(6):676.e1-676.e15
pubmed: 34058167
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;223(4):B2-B17
pubmed: 32407785
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1996 Aug;22(4):365-70
pubmed: 8870420
Prenat Diagn. 2003 Dec 30;23(13):1068-72
pubmed: 14691994
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Dec 21;23(1):
pubmed: 35008459
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Feb;168(2):547-55
pubmed: 8438926
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;56(2):298-312
pubmed: 32738107
Clin Genet. 2011 Nov;80(5):478-83
pubmed: 21166787
Hum Reprod Update. 2021 Aug 20;27(5):885-903
pubmed: 33984128
Blood. 2004 Mar 1;103(5):1669-75
pubmed: 14576065
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 May;176(5):976-80
pubmed: 9166154
Prenat Diagn. 1994 Feb;14(2):105-8
pubmed: 8183846
Genet Med. 2013 Nov;15(11):901-9
pubmed: 24071793
Amino Acids. 2008 Aug;35(2):291-3
pubmed: 17710362
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;43(2):139-46
pubmed: 23897843
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Mar;40(4):432-446
pubmed: 31891188
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;121(5):1122-1133
pubmed: 23635765
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;37(3):341-7
pubmed: 20737455
Am J Med Genet A. 2016 Dec;170(12):3227-3230
pubmed: 27500688
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;45(3):279-85
pubmed: 25358519
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;36(2):86-98
pubmed: 24457811
Prenat Diagn. 1989 Apr;9(4):255-69
pubmed: 2654910
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2017 Nov;5(6):668-677
pubmed: 29178649
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;44(1):1-9
pubmed: 28889126
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Nov;37(11):1061-1066
pubmed: 28944967
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Oct;32(10):986-95
pubmed: 22847778
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;191(1):309-14
pubmed: 15295384
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014 Sep;42(9):567-71
pubmed: 25164160
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Dec;37(12):1219-1224
pubmed: 29025195
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S725-S737
pubmed: 29275822
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;55(3):368-374
pubmed: 31180600
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep;58(5):692-697
pubmed: 31542095
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Jan;37(1):113-115
pubmed: 27922284
Prenat Diagn. 2006 May;26(5):428-32
pubmed: 16557641