Objective To explore the clinical application value of karyotyping and chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with abnormal ultrasonographic soft markers (USM). Methods A total of 345 singleton pregnant women with abnormal USM but without structural abnormalities who had both karyotyping and CMA testing were selected.Then,the test results and maternal data were analyzed. Results Among the 345 cases of abnormal USM,there were 152 cases with single USM,149 cases with other prenatal diagnosis indications,and 44 cases with multiple USM.The detection rates of pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities were 2.63% (4/152),10.74% (16/149) and 20.45% (9/44),respectively.The difference in detection rates between the three groups was statistically significant (χ2= 15.932,P<0.001).The detection rate of pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities with different USM ranged from 0.00% to 21.43%.The USM with the highest detection rate of pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities was nuchal fold (NF) thickening (21.43%),followed by nasal bone loss/dysplasia (12.68%).In the 345 cases,the detection rate of karyotyping chromosomal abnormalities was 7.27% (25/345),and the detection rate of CMA was 14.53% (50/345).No abnormality was detected by CMA in 4 fetuses with chromosomal abnormality by karyotyping.Among cases with normal karyotypes,29 copy number variation (CNV) were detected by CMA. Conclusion The fetus with NF thickening,nasal bone loss/dysplasia,multiple USM abnormalities or single USM abnormality combined with other prenatal indications have a higher detection rate of pathogenic chromosomal abnormality.Therefore,it is recommended to conduct interventional prenatal diagnosis.The results of karyotyping and CMA can be mutually verified and supplemented to provide a more accurate and effective genetic diagnosis for fetuses with abnormal USM.
Key words
Ultrasonographic soft marker /
Prenatal diagnosis /
Chromosome microarray analysis /
Karyotyping /
prenatal and postnatal care
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Evans MI,Wapner RJ,Berkowitz RL.Noninvasive prenatal screening or advanced diagnostic testing:caveat emptor[J].Am J Obstet Gynecol,2016,215(3):298-305.
[2] Agathokleous M,Chaveeva P,Poon LC,et al.Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21[J].Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2013,41(3):247-261.
[3] 邢爱耘.胎儿超声软指标的临床意义[J].实用妇产科杂志,2017,33(12):881-883.
[4] Shaffer LG,McGowan-Jordan J,Schmid M.ISCN 2013:An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (2013) [M].Nomenclature,Basel:S.Karger AG,2013.
[5] Kearney HM,Thorland EC,Brown KK,et al.American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants[J].Genet Med,2011,13(7):680-685.
[6] Bromley B,Shipp TD,Lyons J,et al.What Is the Importance of Second‐Trimester “Soft Markers” for Trisomy 21 After an 11‐to 14‐Week Aneuploidy Screening Scan?[J].J Ultrasound Med,2014,33(10):1747-1752.
[7] 戚庆炜,王和.染色体微阵列分析技术在产前诊断中的应用专家共识[J].中华妇产科杂志,2014,49(8):570-572.
[8] Shaffer LG,Rosenfeld JA,Dabell MP,et al.Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound[J].Prenat Diagn,2012,32(10):986-995.
[9] 马京梅,张秀慧,杨慧霞.染色体微阵列技术非胎儿染色体核型分析的唯一解决之道[J].中华检验医学杂志,2016,39(6):404-406.