Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2020
Cytogenetic Investigation in 136 Consecutive Stillbirths: Does the Tissue Type Affect the Success Rate of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotype?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marquès Borja, Benitez Leticia, Peguero Anna, Madrigal Irene, Gómez Olga, Figueras Francesc, Borrell Antoni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chromosomal anomalies are a recognized cause of stillbirth, accounting for 6-17% of the cases. As a diagnostic laboratory method in this setting, conventional karyotyping has two main drawbacks: the need for viable fetal cells in a dead fetus and its limited resolution as compared to alternative techniques.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of cytogenetic analysis in stillbirths between different testing methods and different sampled tissues.
METHODS: From 2011 to 2017, 145 stillborn fetuses (defined as fetal losses after 22 weeks) were delivered in our center. The stillbirth protocol includes genetic testing by means of a karyotype, QF-PCR, or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), depending on the presence of fetal structural anomalies and the study time period. The success rates were compared between tests and between different sampled tissues.
RESULTS: Consent was granted for cytogenetic analysis in 136 stillbirths. Test success rate was 100% (38/38) for CMA independent of the sampled tissue, 99% (65/66) for QF-PCR, and 66% (65/98) for karyotyping. The success rate for karyotyping was 48% (69/145) of the total tissues samples, showing great variation according to the tissue sampled: 83% (40/48) in amniotic fluid, 78% (21/27) in the placenta, 13% (7/54) in fetal skin, and 6.3% (1/16) in fetal blood. Four full or partial aneuploidies (trisomy 9, trisomy 22, tetrasomy 18p, and monosomy X) and 2 microdeletions (del2p16.3 and del1q13.2q13.4) were found, resulting in a 3.9% (4/103) prevalence for full or partial aneuploidy and a 5.3% prevalence (2/38) for submicroscopic abnormalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Amniotic fluid should be the preferred tissue source in the cytogenetic analysis of stillbirth due to its high success rate. Between tests, CMA is a preferable method because of its higher test success rate, independent of the sampled tissue, and higher diagnostic yield including chromosomal and submicroscopic anomalies.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of cytogenetic analysis in stillbirths between different testing methods and different sampled tissues.
METHODS: From 2011 to 2017, 145 stillborn fetuses (defined as fetal losses after 22 weeks) were delivered in our center. The stillbirth protocol includes genetic testing by means of a karyotype, QF-PCR, or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), depending on the presence of fetal structural anomalies and the study time period. The success rates were compared between tests and between different sampled tissues.
RESULTS: Consent was granted for cytogenetic analysis in 136 stillbirths. Test success rate was 100% (38/38) for CMA independent of the sampled tissue, 99% (65/66) for QF-PCR, and 66% (65/98) for karyotyping. The success rate for karyotyping was 48% (69/145) of the total tissues samples, showing great variation according to the tissue sampled: 83% (40/48) in amniotic fluid, 78% (21/27) in the placenta, 13% (7/54) in fetal skin, and 6.3% (1/16) in fetal blood. Four full or partial aneuploidies (trisomy 9, trisomy 22, tetrasomy 18p, and monosomy X) and 2 microdeletions (del2p16.3 and del1q13.2q13.4) were found, resulting in a 3.9% (4/103) prevalence for full or partial aneuploidy and a 5.3% prevalence (2/38) for submicroscopic abnormalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Amniotic fluid should be the preferred tissue source in the cytogenetic analysis of stillbirth due to its high success rate. Between tests, CMA is a preferable method because of its higher test success rate, independent of the sampled tissue, and higher diagnostic yield including chromosomal and submicroscopic anomalies.