
doi: 10.1002/uog.12389
pmid: 23292918
ABSTRACTObjectiveTo evaluate the usefulness of chromosome microarrays as a second‐tier test in prenatal genetic testing.MethodsWe prospectively analyzed 75 high‐risk pregnancies undergoing invasive prenatal genetic testing in which the karyotype either was normal or had findings other than a common non‐mosaic autosomal aneuploidy.ResultsChromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was performed successfully in all cases. Pathological copy‐number variations (CNVs) explaining the phenotypes were found in 11 cases (14.7%). Four cases were detected with an unbalanced translocation. In three of these cases, subsequent genetic analysis demonstrated that a parent was an unknown carrier of a balanced translocation. Among the 67 cases with normal karyo‐types, submicroscopic rearrangements with pathological significance were detected in five (7.5%) and CNVs of unclear significance were detected in one (1.5%). CMA was able to discriminate correctly between true mosaicism and confined or pseudomosaicism in all six mosaic cases.ConclusionCMA is a valuable second‐tier test in high‐risk pregnancies for which identification or further delineation of genetic aberrations is important. Its higher resolution results in a higher detection rate of aberrant cases, with a clear clinical benefit for estimation of risk of recurrence. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chromosome Aberrations, Karyotype, Chromosome Disorders, Microarray Analysis, Fetal Diseases, Pregnancy, Karyotyping, Prenatal Diagnosis, Humans, Female, Genetic Testing, Prospective Studies
Chromosome Aberrations, Karyotype, Chromosome Disorders, Microarray Analysis, Fetal Diseases, Pregnancy, Karyotyping, Prenatal Diagnosis, Humans, Female, Genetic Testing, Prospective Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 15 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
