The likelihood of detecting abnormal karyotypes in fetuses with a single major anomaly or "soft" marker on ultrasonographic scanning.
Journal
Clinical dysmorphology
ISSN: 1473-5717
Titre abrégé: Clin Dysmorphol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9207893
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2024
16 Feb 2024
Historique:
medline:
27
2
2024
pubmed:
27
2
2024
entrez:
27
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Fetuses with abnormal karyotypes often exhibit distinctive ultrasonographic markers, including major anomalies and "soft" markers, indicating potential chromosomal issues. A crucial consideration arises when a single fetal anomaly is detected, raising the question of whether karyotyping is warranted, given the associated procedural risks. Our objective was to establish correlations between single fetal anomalies identified through ultrasound and chromosomal abnormalities. A cross-sectional study analyzed the karyotype of 1493 fetuses and detected a single ultrasonographic anomaly over a 16-year period. Karyotyping was performed using the standard karyotype technique. Moreover, data regarding the type of anomaly detected ultrasonographically, karyotype results, and outcomes following interventions were collected. Among other methods, the use of positive likelihood ratios (LR+) was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound compared to karyotyping. In total, an aberrant karyotype was identified in 99 fetuses (6.6%). This was most commonly observed in cases involving a "soft" marker, occurring in 27 out of 218 fetuses (12.4%). The most frequently detected aberrant karyotype resulted from aneuploidies (80.6% of cases), notably trisomy 21 (50.5%). "Soft" markers predicted chromosomal issues (LR+ = 1.9; OR = 2.4), and isolated polyhydramnios (LR+ = 1.54; OR = 1.6) showed significance in predicting fetal chromosomal aberrations. When assessing the necessity for karyotyping in fetuses with single major anomalies or "soft" markers, it is crucial to consider individual risks for chromosomopathies, including the LR+ of the detected marker. In cases where fetuses exhibit isolated anomalies with a normal karyotype, additional diagnostic measures, such as molecular cytogenetic and molecular genetics techniques, may become necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38410977
doi: 10.1097/MCD.0000000000000496
pii: 00019605-990000000-00061
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Aagaard-Tillery KM, Malone FD, Nyberg DA, Porter TF, Cuckle HS, Fuchs K, et al.; First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk (FASTER) Research Consortium (2009). ‘Role of second-trimester genetic sonography after Down syndrome screening’. Obstet Gynecol 114:1189–1196.
Achter A, Hager T, Fimmers R, Gembruch U, Müller AM (2016). ‘New osseous soft markers for trisomy 13, 18 and 21’. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294:251–259.
Åhman A, Axelsson O, Maras G, Rubertsson C, Sarkadi A, Lindgren P (2014). ‘Ultrasonographic fetal soft markers in a low-risk population: prevalence, association with trisomies and invasive tests’. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93:367–373.
Ali MK, Shazly SA, Ali AH, Abdelbadee AY, Abbas AM (2012). ‘Ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy in second trimester fetuses’. Middle East Fertil. Soc. J 17:145–151.
Benn KN, et al. (2014). ‘Genetic sonogram: components and role in the era of prenatal screening’. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 25:214–231.
Bottalico JN, Chen X, Tartaglia M, Rosario B, Yarabothu D, Nelson L (2009). ‘Second-trimester genetic sonogram for detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities in a community-based antenatal testing unit’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:161–168.
Bromley B, Lieberman E, Shipp TD, Benacerraf BR (2002). ‘The genetic sonogram: a method of risk assessment for Down syndrome in the second trimester’. J Ultrasound Med 21:1087–1096.
Cai M, Lin N, Chen X, Fu M, Guo N, Xu L, et al. (2021). ‘Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers’. BMC Med Genomics 14:1–9.
Cho R, Chu P, Smith-Bindman R (2009). ‘Second trimester prenatal ultrasound for the detection of pregnancies at increased risk of Trisomy 18 based on serum screening’. Prenat Diagn 29:129–139.
Cicero S, Sacchini C, Rembouskos G, Nicolaides KH (2003). ‘Sonographic markers of fetal aneuploidy--a review’. Placenta 24:S88–S98.
Coco C, Jeanty P (2005). ‘Isolated fetal pyelectasis and chromosomal abnormalities’. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:732–738.
Daniel A, Athayde N, Ogle R, George AM, Michael J, Pertile M, et al. (2003). ‘Prospective ranking of the sonographic markers for aneuploidy: Data of 2143 prenatal cytogenetic diagnoses referred for abnormalities on ultrasound’. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 43:16–26.
Fanaroff A., Martin R. (1992) Neonatal-perinatal medicine. Neonatal-perinatal medicine. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book.
Ko HS, Kwak DW, Oh S-Y, Choi SK, Hong JS, Hwang HS, et al. (2022). ‘Clinical significance of soft markers in second trimester ultrasonography for pregnant Korean women: a multicenter study and literature review’. Obstet Gynecol Sci 65:145–155.
Liehr T (2021). ‘International System for Human Cytogenetic or Cytogenomic Nomenclature (ISCN): Some Thoughts’. Cytogenet Genome Res 161:223–224.
Mastromoro G, Guadagnolo D, Khaleghi Hashemian N, Marchionni E, Traversa A, Pizzuti A (2022). ‘Molecular approaches in fetal malformations, dynamic anomalies and soft markers: diagnostic rates and challenges—systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis’. Diagnostics 12:575.
Moorhead PS, Nowell PC, Mellman WJ, Battips DM, Hungerford DA (1960). ‘Chromosome preparations of leukocytes cultured from human peripheral blood’. Exp Cell Res 20:613–616.
Nicolaides KH, Snijders RJ, Gosden CM, Berry C, Campbell S (1992). ‘Ultrasonographically detectable markers of fetal chromosomal abnormalities’. Lancet 340:704–707.
Prabhu M, Kuller JA, Biggio JR; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org (2021). ‘Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult: evaluation and management of isolated soft ultrasound markers for aneuploidy in the second trimester’. Am J Obstet Gynecol 225:B2–B15.
Programme PH, et al. (2005). ‘EUROCAT Guide 1. 3 and reference documents Instructions for the Registration and Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies’. Public Health 44:575–610.
Raniga S, Desai PD, Parikh H (2006). ‘Ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy in second trimester: are we lost?’ MedGenMed 8:9.
Ratanasiri T, Ratanasiri T, Komwilaisak R, Saksiriwuttho P (2014). ‘Second trimester genetic ultrasound for Down syndrome screening at Srinagarind Hospital’. J Med Assoc Thai 10:89–96.
Rumi Kataguiri M, Araujo Júnior E, Silva Bussamra LC, Nardozza LMM, Fernandes Moron A (2014). ‘Influence of second-trimester ultrasound markers for Down syndrome in pregnant women of advanced maternal age’. J Pregnancy 2014:785730.
Seabright M (1971). ‘A rapid banding technique for human chromosomes’. Lancet 298:971–972.
Sepúlveda W, et al. (2000). ‘Trisomía 21: diagnóstico citogenético prenatal y hallazgos ultrasonográficos/Trisomy 21: prenatal diagnosis and ultrasonographic findings’. Rev. chil. ultrason 3:15–20.
Simsek S, Turkyilmaz A, Oral D, Yalinkaya A, Tekes S, Akbas H, et al. (2013). ‘Genetic analysis in pregnancy with fetal pathologic ultrasound findings’. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 27:3829–3833.
Sohl BD, Scioscia AL, Budorick NE, Moore TR (1999). ‘Utility of minor ultrasonographic markers in the prediction of abnormal fetal karyotype at a prenatal diagnostic center’. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:898–903.
Stefanovic V (2015). ‘Soft markers for aneuploidy following reassuring first trimester screening: What should be done?’ Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 27:151–158.
Yoshizato T, Kozuma Y, Horinouchi T, Shinagawa T, Yokomine M, Ushijima K (2019). ‘Diagnosis of fetal abnormalities during the first trimester’. Kurume Med J 66:85–92.
Younesi S, Taheri Amin MM, Hantoushzadeh S, Saadati P, Jamali S, Modarressi M-H, et al. (2021). ‘Karyotype analysis of amniotic fluid cells and report of chromosomal abnormalities in 15,401 cases of Iranian women’. Sci Rep 11:1–10.