Farname Inc. in collaboration with Iranian Society of Gynecology Oncology

Authors

1 1 Fertility, Infertility and Perinatology Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical

2 Fertility, Infertility and Perinatology Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical

Abstract

Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare CGH array and karyotype for prenatal diagnosis in high-risk individuals in the first trimester screening.
Materials and Methods: The present cross-sectional descriptive prospective study was performed on high-risk mothers screened in the first trimester of pregnancy. Individuals were allocated into two groups under karyotype and CGH array. Because this study is based on genetic testing data, it does not require a follow-up. Information on age, number of pregnancies, history of abortion, history of disease and screening results were collected and analyzed. Data analysis was done using SPSS Version 22 (IBM).
Results: In total 247 cases were analyzed with 128 cases in the karyotype group and 119 cases in the CGH group. 116 samples (90.6%) in the karyotype group and 99 samples (83.2%) in the CGH group showed a normal karyotype. 4.2% (5 samples) and 7.9% (10 samples) of chromosomal abnormalities were trisomy in the CGH group and the karyotype group, respectively. CGH array analysis on chromosomal abnormalities identified copy number variation (CNV) in about 9.2% (11 samples) of cases. In terms of risk factors structural chromosomal, there was a statistically significant relationship in terms of history of disabled children in the family, maternal age, history of anomalies, screening of the first trimester of pregnancy, and increased NT (p<0.05).
Conclusions:  High-resolution arrays specifically prevented fetal malformations. Until now, normal prenatal chromosome analysis has been shown a relatively standard method but CGH may be helpful to specialists in diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities, especially in unknown chromosomal abnormalities.
 

Keywords

  1. 1. Prescott KR, Wilkie AOM. Genetic aspects of birth defects: new understandings of old problems. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007;92(4):F308-F14. 2. Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 2010;686:349-64. 3. Norwitz ER, Levy B. Noninvasive prenatal testing: the future is now. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2013;6(2):48-62. 4. Carlson LM, Vora NL. Prenatal Diagnosis: Screening and Diagnostic Tools. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017;44(2):245-56. 5. Rickman L, Fiegler H, Shaw-Smith C, Nash R, Cirigliano V, Voglino G, et al. Prenatal detection of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements by array CGH. J Med Genet. 2006;43(4):353-61. 6. Hyde KJ, Schust DJ. Genetic considerations in recurrent pregnancy loss. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015;5(3):a023119-a. 7. Benchikh S, Bousfiha A, Razoki L, Aboulfaraj J, Zarouf L, Elbakay C, et al. Chromosome Abnormalities Related to Reproductive and Sexual Development Disorders: A 5-Year Retrospective Study. BioMed Research International. 2021;2021:8893467. 8. Rickman L, Fiegler H, Shaw-Smith C, Nash R, Cirigliano V, Voglino G, et al. Prenatal detection of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements by array CGH. J Med Genet. 2006;43:353-61. 9. Grimshaw G, Szczepura A, Hulten M, MacDonald F, Nevin N, Sutton F, et al. Evaluation of molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2003;7(10):1-146. 10. Pös O, Radvanszky J, Styk J, Pös Z, Buglyó G, Kajsik M, et al. Copy number variation: methods and clinical applications. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(2):819. 11. Das RR, Natarajan SG, Agrawal SS, Bhattacharya IP. TOWARDS ANALYSING COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDISATION METHOD. Journal of Advanced Scientific Research. 2020;11. 12. Traversa MV, Marshall J, McArthur S, Leigh D. The genetic screening of preimplantation embryos by comparative genomic hybridisation. Reproductive biology. 2011;11 Suppl 3:51-60. 13. Kleeman L, Bianchi DW, Shaffer LG, Rorem E, Cowan J, Craigo SD, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29(13):1213-7. 14. Health Quality O. Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13, Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies, and Microdeletions: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19(4):1-166. 15. Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(3):CD003252-CD. 16. Driscoll DA, Gross SJ, Professional Practice Guidelines C. Screening for fetal aneuploidy and neural tube defects. Genet Med. 2009;11(11):818-21. 17. Wojcik MH, Reimers R, Poorvu T, Agrawal PB. Genetic diagnosis in the fetus. Journal of Perinatology. 2020;40(7):997-1006. 18. Vallespin E, palomares bralo M, Mori M, Martin R, García-Miñaúr S, Fernandez L, et al. Customized High Resolution CGH-Array for Clinical Diagnosis Reveals Additional Genomic Imbalances in Previous Well-Defined Pathological Samples. American journal of medical genetics Part A. 2013;161. 19. Watson CT, Marques-Bonet T, Sharp AJ, Mefford HC. The genetics of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes: an update. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2014;15:215-44. 20. Freitas M, Pinto J, Ramalho C, Dória S. Prenatal diagnosis: the clinical usefulness of array comparative genomic hybridization. Porto Biomedical Journal. 2018;3(2). 21. Van den Veyver IB. Recent advances in prenatal genetic screening and testing. F1000Res. 2016;5:2591-. 22. Wilson RD, Gagnon A, Audibert F, Campagnolo C, Carroll J, Brock J-A, et al. Prenatal diagnosis procedures and techniques to obtain a diagnostic fetal specimen or tissue: maternal and fetal risks and benefits. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2015;37(7):656-68. 23. Isidori I, Spapperi C, Barbati A, Mencarelli A, Stangoni G. QF-PCR and MLPA: a reliable molecular system to detect chromosomal alterations in miscarriages. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology. 2017;44(2):220-5. 24. Lichtenbelt K, Knoers N, Schuring-Blom G. From karyotyping to array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis. Cytogenetic and genome research. 2011;135(3-4):241-50. 25. Evangelidou P, Alexandrou A, Moutafi M, Ioannides M, Antoniou P, Koumbaris G, et al. Implementation of high resolution whole genome array CGH in the prenatal clinical setting: advantages, challenges, and review of the literature. BioMed research international. 2013;2013:346762-. 26. Meza-Zepeda LA, Noer A, Dahl JA, Micci F, Myklebost O, Collas P. High-resolution analysis of genetic stability of human adipose tissue stem cells cultured to senescence. J Cell Mol Med. 2008;12(2):553-63. 27. Blakeley C, Smith DM, Johnstone ED, Wittkowski A. Parental decision-making following a prenatal diagnosis that is lethal, life-limiting, or has long term implications for the future child and family: a meta-synthesis of qualitative literature. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):56-. 28. Leung T, Vogel I, Lau T, Chong W, Hyett J, Petersen O, et al. Identification of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and apparently normal karyotype. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. 2011;38(3):314-9. 29. Egloff M, Hervé B, Quibel T, Jaillard S, Le Bouar G, Uguen K, et al. Diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency: a French multicenter study. 2018;52(6):715-21. 30. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. The New England journal of medicine. 2012;367(23):2175-84. 31. Breman A, Pursley AN, Hixson P, Bi W, Ward P, Bacino CA, et al. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with> 1000 cases and review of the literature. Prenatal diagnosis. 2012;32(4):351-61. 32. Srebniak MI, Joosten M, Knapen M, Arends LR, Polak M, van Veen S, et al. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;51(4):445-52. 33. Vialard F, Gomes DM, Leroy B, Quarello E, Escalona A, Le Sciellour C, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis: another experience. Fetal diagnosis and therapy. 2009;25(2):277-84. 34. Rickman L, Fiegler H, Shaw-Smith C, Nash R, Cirigliano V, Voglino G, et al. Prenatal detection of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements by array CGH. J Med Genet. 2006;43(4):353-61. 35. Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter DH, Lese Martin C. Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74(6):1168-74. 36. Evangelidou P, Sismani C, Ioannides M, Christodoulou C, Koumbaris G, Kallikas I, et al. Clinical application of whole-genome array CGH during prenatal diagnosis: Study of 25 selected pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings or apparently balanced structural aberrations. Mol Cytogenet. 2010;3:24-. 37. Miny P, Wenzel F, Tercanli S, Filges I. Chromosomal microarrays in prenatal diagnosis: time for a change of policy? Microarrays. 2013;2(4):304-17. 38. Filges I, Kang A, Klug V, Wenzel F, Heinimann K, Tercanli S, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis of first trimester pregnancies at high risk for chromosomal anomalies. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:38. 39. Qi G, Yi J, Han B, Liu H, Guo W, Shi C, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing in routine clinical practice for a high-risk population: Experience from a center. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(41):e5126-e. 40. Nepomnyashchaya YN, Artemov AV, Roumiantsev SA, Roumyantsev AG, Zhavoronkov A. Non-invasive prenatal diagnostics of aneuploidy using next-generation DNA sequencing technologies, and clinical considerations. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. 2013;51(6):1141-54.