Prenatal diagnosis · 2015
Interpreting mosaicism in chorionic villi: results of a monocentric series of 1001 mosaics in chorionic villi with follow-up amniocentesis.
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.
Malvestiti Francesca, Agrati Cristina, Grimi Beatrice, Pompilii Eva, Izzi Claudia, Martinoni Lorenza, Gaetani Elisa, Liuti Maria Rosaria, Trotta Anna, Maggi Federico, Simoni Giuseppe, Grati Francesca Romana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Chromosomal mosaicism in chorionic villi (CV) is detected in ~1-2% of cases. When a mosaic in CV is detected during prenatal diagnosis, a confirmatory karyotype should be performed on amniocytes to discriminate between a mosaic confined to the placenta [confined placental mosaicism (CPM)] and one generalized to the fetus [true fetal mosaicism (TFM)]. We determined the likelihood that any mosaic abnormalities identified through CV samples are confirmed in the fetus.
METHODS: Over a period of 14 years, the laboratory analyzed both the cytotrophoblast and the mesenchyme of 60 347 CV samples. Cytogenetic results from CV samples showing mosaicism with follow-up amniocentesis were considered. The incidence of CPM and TFM and the risk of confirmation in the amniotic fluid (AF) were calculated. Uniparental disomy (UPD) was tested on ~300 cases at risk due to involvement of an imprinted chromosome.
RESULTS: Overall, 1317 mosaic CV cases (2.18%) were detected, of which 1001 were subsequently investigated by amniocentesis. The overall risk of TFM was 13% and UPD incidence was 2.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: The very large presented sample set and consistency in cytogenetic methodology, especially the analysis of both placental layers performed on all CV samples will enable genetic counselors to determine the risk of fetal involvement and the clinical relevance of an identified mosaic condition.
METHODS: Over a period of 14 years, the laboratory analyzed both the cytotrophoblast and the mesenchyme of 60 347 CV samples. Cytogenetic results from CV samples showing mosaicism with follow-up amniocentesis were considered. The incidence of CPM and TFM and the risk of confirmation in the amniotic fluid (AF) were calculated. Uniparental disomy (UPD) was tested on ~300 cases at risk due to involvement of an imprinted chromosome.
RESULTS: Overall, 1317 mosaic CV cases (2.18%) were detected, of which 1001 were subsequently investigated by amniocentesis. The overall risk of TFM was 13% and UPD incidence was 2.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: The very large presented sample set and consistency in cytogenetic methodology, especially the analysis of both placental layers performed on all CV samples will enable genetic counselors to determine the risk of fetal involvement and the clinical relevance of an identified mosaic condition.