Cargando…
ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient?
OBJECTIVE: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal‐Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for prenatal diagnosis in cases with 1 or more fetal structural abnormalities. For patients who elect prenatal diagnosis and have a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29315677 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.5212 |
_version_ | 1783314507405197312 |
---|---|
author | Hay, Sara B. Sahoo, Trilochan Travis, Mary K. Hovanes, Karine Dzidic, Natasa Doherty, Charles Strecker, Michelle N. |
author_facet | Hay, Sara B. Sahoo, Trilochan Travis, Mary K. Hovanes, Karine Dzidic, Natasa Doherty, Charles Strecker, Michelle N. |
author_sort | Hay, Sara B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal‐Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for prenatal diagnosis in cases with 1 or more fetal structural abnormalities. For patients who elect prenatal diagnosis and have a structurally normal fetus, either microarray or karyotype is recommended. This study evaluates the frequency of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities (CSCA) that would have been missed if all patients offered the choice between CMA and karyotyping chose karyotyping. METHODS: A total of 3223 prenatal samples undergoing CMA were evaluated. Cases were categorized into 2 groups: those that met ACOG guidelines for CMA versus those that met ACOG guidelines for either CMA or karyotype. RESULTS: Of the 3223 cases, 1475 (45.8%) met ACOG recommendations for CMA, and 1748 (54.2%) met recommendations for either CMA or karyotype. In patients who could have elected either CMA or karyotype, 2.5% had CSCA that would have been missed if the patient had elected to pursue karyotype. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that 2.5% of patients will have a CSCA that may be missed if the guidelines continue to suggest that CMA and karyotyping have equivalent diagnostic value for patients without a fetal structural abnormality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5900922 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59009222018-04-23 ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? Hay, Sara B. Sahoo, Trilochan Travis, Mary K. Hovanes, Karine Dzidic, Natasa Doherty, Charles Strecker, Michelle N. Prenat Diagn Original Articles OBJECTIVE: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal‐Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for prenatal diagnosis in cases with 1 or more fetal structural abnormalities. For patients who elect prenatal diagnosis and have a structurally normal fetus, either microarray or karyotype is recommended. This study evaluates the frequency of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities (CSCA) that would have been missed if all patients offered the choice between CMA and karyotyping chose karyotyping. METHODS: A total of 3223 prenatal samples undergoing CMA were evaluated. Cases were categorized into 2 groups: those that met ACOG guidelines for CMA versus those that met ACOG guidelines for either CMA or karyotype. RESULTS: Of the 3223 cases, 1475 (45.8%) met ACOG recommendations for CMA, and 1748 (54.2%) met recommendations for either CMA or karyotype. In patients who could have elected either CMA or karyotype, 2.5% had CSCA that would have been missed if the patient had elected to pursue karyotype. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that 2.5% of patients will have a CSCA that may be missed if the guidelines continue to suggest that CMA and karyotyping have equivalent diagnostic value for patients without a fetal structural abnormality. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-02-06 2018-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5900922/ /pubmed/29315677 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.5212 Text en 2018 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Hay, Sara B. Sahoo, Trilochan Travis, Mary K. Hovanes, Karine Dzidic, Natasa Doherty, Charles Strecker, Michelle N. ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? |
title | ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? |
title_full | ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? |
title_fullStr | ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? |
title_full_unstemmed | ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? |
title_short | ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient? |
title_sort | acog and smfm guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: is karyotyping really sufficient? |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29315677 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.5212 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT haysarab acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient AT sahootrilochan acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient AT travismaryk acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient AT hovaneskarine acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient AT dzidicnatasa acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient AT dohertycharles acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient AT streckermichellen acogandsmfmguidelinesforprenataldiagnosisiskaryotypingreallysufficient |