Introduction: The aim of this article is to provide a perspective of prenatal chromosomal diagnosis (PCD) derived from a single center's evolving experience from ∼90,000 consecutive prenatal cases and to highlight important issues and current dilemmas. Materials and Methods: Prenatal cases in this study (1985-2013) were referred for various indications, and PCD was performed by standard karyotype in 84,255 cases, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) panel in 3,010 cases and standalone array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in 3,122 cases. Results: Classic karyotype revealed 1.7 and 7.9% of pathological cases in amniotic fluid and CVS samples, respectively, with common aneuploidies accounting for 59.6 and 64.3% of the total abnormal. Molecular approaches increased the diagnostic yield by 0.6% for MLPA and 1.6% for aCGH, uncovering pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities undetectable by karyotype analysis. Conclusions: Current molecular diagnostic capabilities and the recent introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) point to one current major dilemma in PCD, with serious implications in genetic counseling, relating on the one hand to reaping the benefits from the high detection rate afforded through aCGH but accepting an invasive risk, and on the other hand, offering a lower detection rate practically only for Down syndrome, with minimal invasive risk.

1.
Lejeune J, Gautier M, Turpin MR: Étude des chromosomes somatiques de neuf enfants mongoliens. CR Acad Sci (Paris) 1959;248:1721-1722.
2.
Steele MW, Berg WR Jr: Chromosome analysis of human amniotic fluid cells. Lancet 1966;1:383-385.
3.
Nadler HL: Antenatal detection of hereditary disorders. Pediatrics 1968;42:912-918.
4.
Brambati B, Simoni G: Diagnosis of fetal trisomy 21 in first trimester. Lancet 1983;1:586.
5.
Wald NJ, Watt HC, Hackshaw AK: Integrated screening for Down syndrome on the basis of tests performed during the first and second trimesters. N Engl J Med 1999;341:461-467.
6.
Spencer K, Spencer CE, Power M, Dawson C, Nicolaides KH: Screening for chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester using ultrasound and maternal serum biochemistry in a one-stop clinic: a review of three years prospective experience. BJOG 2003;110:281-286.
7.
Palomaki GE, Lee JES, Canick JA, McDowell GA, Donnenfeld AE; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee: Technical standards and guidelines: prenatal screening for Down syndrome that includes first-trimester biochemistry and/or ultrasound measurements. Genet Med 2009;11:669-681.
8.
Nicolaides KH: Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:7-15.
9.
Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Walters J, Chitty L, Mackinson AM; SURUSS Research Group: First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-77.
10.
Saller DN Jr, Canick JA: Current methods of prenatal screening for Down syndrome and other fetal abnormalities. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008;51:24-36.
11.
Spencer K, Spencer CE, Power M, Dawson C, Nicolaides KH: Screening for chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester using ultrasound and maternal serum biochemistry in a one-stop clinic: a review of three years prospective experience. BJOG 2003;110:281-286.
12.
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:217-227.
13.
Sheets KB, Crissman BG, Feist CD, Sell SL, Johnson LR, Donahue KC, Masser-Frye D, Brookshire GS, Carre AM, Lagrave D, Brasington CK: Practice guidelines for communicating a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2011;20:432-441.
14.
Pergament E, Pergament D: Reproductive decisions after fetal genetic counselling. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2012;26:517-529.
15.
Shaffer LG, Bui TH: Molecular cytogenetic and rapid aneuploidy detection methods in prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2007;145C:87-98.
16.
Leung WC, Lau ET, Lau WL, Tang R, Wong SF, Lau TK, Tse KT, Wong SF, To WK, Ng LK, Lao TT, Tang MH: Rapid aneuploidy testing (knowing less) versus traditional karyotyping (knowing more) for advanced maternal age: what would be missed, who should decide? Hong Kong Med J 2008;14:6-13.
17.
Hills A, Donaghue C, Waters J, Waters K, Sullivan C, Kulkarni A, Docherty Z, Mann K, Ogilvie CM: QF-PCR as a stand-alone test for prenatal samples: the first 2 years' experience in the London region. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:509-517.
18.
Mann K, Hills A, Donaghue C, Thomas H, Ogilvie CM: Quantitative fluorescence PCR analysis of >40,000 prenatal samples for the rapid diagnosis of trisomies 13, 18 and 21 and monosomy X. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:1197-1204.
19.
Nicolini U, Lalatta F, Natacci F, Curcio C, Bui TH: The introduction of QF-PCR in prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: time for reconsideration. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:541-548.
20.
Ellison JW, Ravnan JB, Rosenfeld JA, Morton SA, Neill NJ, Williams MS, Lewis J, Torchia BS, Walker C, Traylor RN, Moles K, Miller E, Lantz J, Valentin C, Minier SL, Leiser K, Powell BR, Wilks TM, Shaffer LG: Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis. Pediatrics 2012;130:e1085-e1095.
21.
Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA: The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:1119-1123.
22.
Lu XY, Phung MT, Shaw CA, Pham K, Neil SE, Patel A, Sahoo T, Bacino CA, Stankiewicz P, Kang SH, Lalani S, Chinault AC, Lupski JR, Cheung SW, Beaudet AL: Genomic imbalances in neonates with birth defects: high detection rates by using chromosomal microarray analysis. Pediatrics 2008;122:1310-1318.
23.
Wellesley D, Dolk H, Boyd PA, Greenlees R, Haeusler M, Nelen V, Garne E, Khoshnood B, Doray B, Rissmann A, Mullaney C, Calzolari E, Bakker M, Salvador J, Addor MC, Draper E, Rankin J, Tucker D: Rare chromosome abnormalities, prevalence and prenatal diagnosis rates from population-based congenital anomaly registers in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 2012;20:521-526.
24.
Bianchi DW, Wilkins-Haug L: Integration of noninvasive DNA testing for aneuploidy into prenatal care: what has happened since the rubber met the road? Clin Chem 2014;60:78-87.
25.
Deutsch S, Choudhury U, Merla G, Howald C, Sylvan A, Antonarakis SE: Detection of aneuploidies by paralogous sequence quantification. J Med Genet 2004;41:908-915.
26.
Konialis C, Hagnefelt B, Sevastidou S, Karapanou S, Pispili K, Markaki A, Pangalos C: Uncovering recurrent microdeletion syndromes and subtelomeric deletions/duplications through non-selective application of a MLPA-based extended prenatal panel in routine prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:571-577.
27.
South ST, Lee C, Lamb AN, Higgins AW, Kearney HM; Working Group for the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee: ACMG Standards and Guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013. Genet Med 2013;15:901-909.
28.
Comas C, Echevarria M, Ángeles Rodríguez M, Rodríguez I, Serra B, Cirigliano V: Prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities: a 13-year institution experience diagnostics 2012;2:57-71.
29.
Chang YW, Chang CM, Sung PL, Yang MJ, Li WH, Li HY, Chen LC, Cheng LY, Lai YL, Cheng YY, Chang WH, Chao KC, Wang PH: An overview of a 30-year experience with amniocentesis in a single tertiary medical center in Taiwan. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2012;51:206-211.
30.
Karaoguz MY, Bal F, Yakut T, Ercelen NO, Ergun MA, Gokcen AB, Biri AA, Kimya Y, Urman B, Gultomruk M, Egeli U, Menevse S: Cytogenetic results of amniocentesis materials: incidence of abnormal karyotypes in the Turkish collaborative study. Genet Couns 2006;17:219-230.
31.
Han SH, An JW, Jeong GY, Yoon HR, Lee A, Yang YH, Lee KP, Lee KR: Clinical and cytogenetic findings on 31,615 mid-trimester amniocenteses. Korean J Lab Med 2008;28:378-385.
32.
Mademont-Soler I, Morales C, Clusellas N, Soler A, Sanchez A: Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis in Spain: analysis and evaluation of the results obtained from amniotic fluid samples during the last decade. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;157:156-160.
33.
Seeds JW: Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:607-615.
34.
Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z: Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:687-694.
35.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1459-1467.
36.
Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM, Stamilio DM, Macones GA, Crane JP: Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: a single center's 16-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:589-595.
37.
Hahnemann JM, Vejerslev LO: Accuracy of cytogenetic findings on chorionic villus sampling (CVS) - diagnostic consequences of CVS mosaicism and non-mosaic discrepancy in centres contributing to EUCROMIC 1986-1992. Prenat Diagn 1997;17:801-820.
38.
Kalousek DK, Dill FJ: Chromosomal mosaicism confined to the placenta in human conceptions. Science 1983;221:665-667.
39.
Saura R, Toutain J, Horovitz J: A freehand ultrasonographically guided technique in transabdominal chorionic villus sampling in more than 24 000 consecutive cases. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:387-388.
40.
Donaghue C, Mann K, Docherty Z, Ogilvie CM: Detection of mosaicism for primary trisomies in prenatal samples by QF-PCR and karyotype analysis. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:61-72.
41.
Caine A, Maltby AE, Parkin CA, Waters JJ, Crolla JA; UK Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists (ACC): Prenatal detection of Down syndrome by rapid aneuploidy testing for chromosomes 13, 18, and 21 by FISH or PCR without a full karyotype: a cytogenetic risk assessment. Lancet 2005;366:123-128.
42.
Rooms L, Reyniers E, van Luijk R, Scheers S, Wauters J, Ceulemans B, Van Den Ende J, Van Bever Y, Kooy RF: Subtelomeric deletions detected in patients with idiopathic mental retardation using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Hum Mutat 2004;23:17-21.
43.
Northrop EL, Ren H, Bruno DL, McGhie JD, Coffa J, Schouten J, Choo KH, Slater HR: Detection of cryptic subtelomeric chromosome abnormalities and identification of anonymous chromatin using a quantitative multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) assay. Hum Mutat 2005;26:477-486.
44.
Le Caignec C, Boceno M, Saugier-Veber P, Jacquemont S, Joubert M, David A, Frebourg T, Rival JM: Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genomic hybridisation in fetuses with multiple malformations. J Med Genet 2005;42:121-128.
45.
Hall GK, Mackie FL, Hamilton S, Evans A, McMullan DJ, Williams D, Allen S, Kilby MD: Chromosomal microarray analysis allows prenatal detection of low level mosaic autosomal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:505-507.
46.
Carey L, Scott F, Murphy K, Mansfield N, Barahona P, Leigh D, Robertson R, McLennan A: Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal mosaicism in over 1600 cases using array comparative genomic hybridization as a first line test. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:478-486.
47.
Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, Shih JC, Lin TH, Su YN: Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies. BJOG 2012;119:614-625.
48.
Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, Savage M, Platt LD, Saltzman D, Grobman WA, Klugman S, Scholl T, Simpson JL, McCall K, Aggarwal VS, Bunke B, Nahum O, Patel A, Lamb AN, Thom EA, Beaudet AL, Ledbetter DH, Shaffer LG, Jackson L: Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2175-2184.
49.
Fiorentino F, Napoletano S, Caiazzo F, Sessa M, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Gordon A, Nuccitelli A, Rizzo G, Baldi M: Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:725-730.
50.
Oneda B, Baldinger R, Reissmann R, Reshetnikova I, Krejci P, Masood R, Ochsenbein-Kölble N, Bartholdi D, Steindl K, Morotti D, Faranda M, Baumer A, Asadollahi R, Joset P, Niedrist D, Breymann C, Hebisch G, Hüsler M, Mueller R, Prentl E, Wisser J, Zimmermann R, Rauch A: High-resolution chromosomal microarrays in prenatal diagnosis significantly increase diagnostic power. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:525-533.
51.
Ganesamoorthy D, Bruno DL, McGillivray G, Norris F, White SM, Adroub S, Amor DJ, Yeung A, Oertel R, Pertile MD, Ngo C, Arvaj AR, Walker S, Charan P, Palma-Dias R, Woodrow N, Slater HR: Meeting the challenge of interpreting high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism array data in prenatal diagnosis: does increased diagnostic power outweigh the dilemma of rare variants? BJOG 2013;120:594-606.
52.
Crolla JA, Wapner R, Van Lith JM: Controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: should everyone undergoing invasive testing have a microarray? Prenat Diagn 2014;34:18-22.
53.
Cuckle H, Benn P, Pergament E: Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome - a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:636-642.
54.
Okun N, Teitelbaum M, Huang T, Dewa CS, Hoch JS: The price of performance: a cost and performance analysis of the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for Down syndrome in Ontario, Canada. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:350-356.
55.
Syngelaki A, Pergament E, Homfray T, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH: Replacing the combined test by cell-free DNA testing in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: impact on the diagnosis of other chromosomal abnormalities. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;35:174-184.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.