
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>AbstractTo investigate the incidence and clinical significance of chromosomal mosaicism (CM) in prenatal diagnosis by G‐banding karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). This is a single‐centre retrospective study of invasive prenatal diagnosis for CM. From 5758 karyotyping results and 6066 CMA results, 104 foetal cases with CM were selected and analysed further. In total, 50% (52/104) of foetal cases with CM were affected by ultrasound‐detectable phenotypes. Regardless of whether they were singleton or twin pregnancies, isolated structural defects in one system (51.35%, 19/37 in singletons; 86.67%, 13/15 in twins) and a single soft marker (18.92%, 7/37 in singletons; 13.33%, 2/15 in twins) were the most common ultrasound anomalies. Mosaic autosomal trisomy (19.23%, 20/104) was the most frequent type, and its rate was higher in phenotypic foetuses (28.85%, 15/52) than in non‐phenotypic foetuses (9.62%, 5/52). There was no difference in mosaic fractions between phenotypic and non‐phenotypic foetuses based on specimen sources or overall classification. Discordant mosaic results were observed in 16 cases (15.38%, 16/104) from different specimens or different testing methods. Genetic counselling and clinical management regarding CM in prenatal diagnosis remain challenging due to the variable phenotypes and unclear significance. Greater caution should be used in prenatal counselling, and more comprehensive assays involving serial ultrasound examinations, different specimens or testing methods verifications and follow‐up should be applied.
Adult, Mosaicism, Karyotyping, Karyotype, Humans, Genetic Counseling, Original Articles, Microarray Analysis
Adult, Mosaicism, Karyotyping, Karyotype, Humans, Genetic Counseling, Original Articles, Microarray Analysis
| citations 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).  | 29 | |
| 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% | 
