Abstract
Introduction: This study was performed to assess the optimal resolution for prenatal testing by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), aiming to balance between maximum diagnostic yield and minimal detection of variants of uncertain significance (VOUS). Methods: This was a prospective study using data of 2,336 fetuses that underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis, and the samples were analyzed by aCGH. In total, six different aCGH platforms were studied; four different resolutions (0.18 Mb, 0.5 Mb, 1 Mb, and 2 Mb) and two platform designs (whole-genome [WG] and targeted). The results of these designs were compared based on their diagnostic yield and VOUS rate. The performance of the different designs was further analyzed according to indication for invasive testing. Results: The diagnostic yield of copy number variants increased with increasing level of analysis. The detection rates of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities were almost the same across our targeted array designs; 7.2% with 0.18 Mb backbone/0.05 Mb versus 7.1% with 0.5 Mb backbone/0.05 Mb (p >0.05). However, a significant difference in the rate of VOUS was observed; 9.4% with 0.18 Mb backbone/0.05 Mb versus 6% with 0.5 Mb backbone/0.05 Mb (p <0.001). After analyzing the results across different indications for testing, we found that the application of non-targeted platform designs and lower levels of resolution analysis (such as 1 Mb WG or 0.5 MbL/1 MbG WG) would offer similar diagnostic yield in most cases with major congenital anomalies, with lower VOUS rates. However, the sample size for many indication groups was too small to extract robust associations. Conclusion: It appears that the targeted array platform with 0.5 Mb backbone resolution and 0.05 Mb on targeted gene-rich regions is optimal for routine chromosomal microarray analysis use in prenatal diagnosis. It may be beneficial to individualize the minimum resolution in specific referral indications as the indications for invasive prenatal testing may be quite heterogeneous.
Journal Section:
Prenatal Diagnosis
References
1.
Norton
ME
, Rink
BD
. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening
. Semin Perinatol
. 2016
;40
(1
):56
–66
.2.
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins
. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities
. Obstet Gynecol
. 2007
;109
(1
):217
–27
.3.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy
. Obstet Gynecol
. 2007
;110
(6
):1459
–67
.4.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins Obstetrics Committee on Genetics Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG practice bulletin, number 226
. Obstet Gynecol
. 2020 Oct
136
4
e48
69
.5.
Papoulidis
I
, Sotiriadis
A
, Siomou
E
, Papageorgiou
E
, Eleftheriades
M
, Papadopoulos
V
. Routine use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) as standard approach for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. Clinical experience of 1763 prenatal cases
. Prenat Diagn
. 2015
;35
(13
):1269
–77
.6.
Evans
MI
, Wapner
RJ
, Berkowitz
RL
. Noninvasive prenatal screening or advanced diagnostic testing: caveat emptor
. Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 2016
;215
(3
):298
–305
.7.
Shaffer
LG
, Dabell
MP
, Fisher
AJ
, Coppinger
J
, Bandholz
AM
, Ellison
JW
. Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5,000 pregnancies
. Prenat Diagn
. 2012
;32
(10
):976
–85
.8.
Scott
F
, Mansfield
N
, Barahona
P
, Murphy
K
, Carey
L
, Greville
W
. Prenatal diagnosis using combined quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis as a first-line test: results from over 1,000 consecutive cases
. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
. 2013
;41
(5
):500
–7
. Murphy9.
Levy
B
, Wapner
R
. Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis
. Fertil Steril
. 2018 Feb
109
2
201
12
.10.
Richards
S
, Aziz
N
, Bale
S
, Bick
D
, Das
S
, Gastier-Foster
J
. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular Pathology
. Genet Med
. 2015 May
17
5
405
24
.11.
Hillman
SC
, McMullan
DJ
, Hall
G
, Togneri
FS
, James
N
, Maher
EJ
. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis
. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
. 2013
;41
(6
):610
–20
.12.
Srebniak
MI
, Mout
L
, Van Opstal
D
, Galjaard
RJH
. 0.5 Mb array as a first-line prenatal cytogenetic test in cases without ultrasound abnormalities and its implementation in clinical practice
. Hum Mutat
. 2013 Sep
34
9
1298
303
.13.
Richards
S
, Aziz
N
, Bale
S
, Bick
D
, Das
S
, Gastier-Foster
J
. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular Pathology
. Genet Med
. 2015
;17
(5
):405
–424
.14.
Papoulidis
I
, Siomou
E
, Sotiriadis
A
, Efstathiou
G
, Psara
A
, Sevastopoulou
E
. Dual testing with QF-PCR and karyotype analysis for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. Evaluation of 13,500 cases with consideration of using QF-PCR as a stand-alone test according to referral indications
. Prenat Diagn
. 2012 Jul
32
7
680
5
.15.
Wapner
RJ
, Driscoll
DA
, Simpson
JL
. Integration of microarray technology into prenatal diagnosis: counselling issues generated during the NICHD clinical trial
. Prenat Diagn
. 2012 April
32
4
396
400
.16.
Lee
C-N
, Lin
S-Y
, Lin
C-H
, Shih
J-C
, Lin
T-H
, Su
Y-N
. Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3,171 pregnancies
. BJOG
. 2012 Apr
119
5
614
25
.17.
Bornstein
E
, Berger
S
, Cheung
SW
, Maliszewski
KT
, Patel
A
, Pursley
AN
. Universal prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis: additive value and clinical dilemmas in fetuses with a normal karyotype
. Am J Perinatol
. 2017 Mar
34
4
340
8
.18.
Srebniak
MI
, Joosten
M
, Knapen
MFCM
, Arends
LR
, Polak
M
, van Veen
S
. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis
. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
. 2018
;51
(4
):445
–52
.19.
Vermeesch
JR
, Brady
PD
, Sanlaville
D
, Kok
K
, Hastings
RJ
. Genome-wide arrays: quality criteria and platforms to be used in routine diagnostics
. Hum Mutat
. 2012 Jun
33
6
906
15
.20.
Wapner
RJ
, Zachary
J
, Clifton
R
. Change in classification of prenatal microarray anaylsis copy number variants over time
. Prenat Diagn
. 2015
35
Supplement S1
).21.
Stosic
M
, Levy
B
, Wapner
R
. The use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis
. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am
. 2018 Mar
45
1
55
68
.22.
Coppinger
J
, Alliman
S
, Lamb
AN
, Torchia
BS
, Bejjani
BA
, Shaffer
LG
. Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray
. Prenat Diagn
. 2009
;29
(12
):1156
–66
.23.
Cooper
GM
, Coe
BP
, Girirajan
S
, Rosenfeld
JA
, Vu
TH
, Baker
C
. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay
. Nat Genet
. 2011 Aug 14
43
9
838
46
.24.
Kaminsky
EB
, Kaul
V
, Paschall
J
, Church
DM
, Bunke
B
, Kunig
D
. An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities
. Genet Med
. 2011 Sep
13
9
777
84
.25.
Miller
DT
, Adam
MP
, Aradhya
S
, Biesecker
LG
, Brothman
AR
, Carter
NP
. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies
. Am J Hum Genet
. May 14, 2010
86
5
749
64
.26.
Gardiner
C
, Wellesley
D
, Kilby
MD
, Kerr
B
Recommendations for the use of chromosome microarray in pregnancy
The Royal College of Pathologists
2015
. p. G144
.27.
Srebniak
MI
, Van Opstal
D
, Joosten
M
, Diderich
KEM
, de Vries
FAT
, Riedijk
S
. Whole-genome array as a first-line cytogenetic test in prenatal diagnosis
. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
. 2015 Apr
45
4
363
72
.28.
Godino
L
, Pompilii
E
, D'Anna
F
, Morselli-Labate
AM
, Nardi
E
, Seri
M
. Attitudes of women of advanced maternal age undergoing invasive prenatal diagnosis and the impact of genetic counselling
. Eur J Hum Genet
. 2016
;24
(3
):331
–7
.29.
Carroll
JC
, Rideout
A
, Wilson
BJ
, Allanson
J
, Blaine
S
, Esplen
MJ
. Maternal age-based prenatal screening for chromosomal disorders: attitudes of women and health care providers toward changes
. Can Fam Physician
. 2013 Jan
59
1
e39
47
.30.
Chitayat
D
, Langlois
S
, Douglas Wilson
R
CCMG Prenatal Diagnosis Committee
. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies
. J Obstet Gynaecol Can
. 2011 Jul
33
7
736
50
.31.
Shaffer
LG
, Dabell
MP
, Rosenfeld
JA
, Neill
NJ
, Ballif
BC
, Coppinger
J
. Referral patterns for microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis
. Prenat Diagn
. 2012 Jun
32
6
611
.32.
Hillman
SC
, McMullan
DJ
, Silcock
L
, Maher
ER
, Kilby
MD
. How does altering the resolution of chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal setting affect the rates of pathological and uncertain findings
. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med
. 2014
;27
(7
):649
–57
.33.
Cohen
K
, Tzika
A
, Wood
H
, Berri
S
, Roberts
P
, Mason
G
. Diagnosis of fetal submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities in failed array CGH samples: copy number by sequencing as an alternative to microarrays for invasive fetal testing
. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
. 2015 Apr
45
4
394
401
.34.
Alkuraya
FS
. Discovery of rare homozygous mutations from studies of consanguineous pedigrees
. Curr Protoc Hum Genet
. 2012
Chapter 6
Unit 6.12
.35.
Levy
B
, Burnside
RD
. Are all chromosome microarrays the same? What clinicians need to know
. Prenat Diagn
. 2019 Feb
39
3
157
64
.© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.
