Cargando…

Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results of sex chromosome abnormalities: Report of five cases and systematic review of evidence

BACKGROUND: Follow‐up cytogenetic analysis has been recommended for cases with positive noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) results. This study of five cases with numerical and structural sex chromosomal abnormalities (SCA) and a review of large case series of NIPS provided guidance to improve pre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xie, Xiaolei, Tan, Weihe, Li, Fuguang, Carrano, Eric, Ramirez, Paola, DiAdamo, Autumn, Grommisch, Brittany, Amato, Katherine, Chai, Hongyan, Wen, Jiadi, Li, Peining
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7336728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32383339
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1297
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Follow‐up cytogenetic analysis has been recommended for cases with positive noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) results. This study of five cases with numerical and structural sex chromosomal abnormalities (SCA) and a review of large case series of NIPS provided guidance to improve prenatal diagnosis for SCA. METHODS: Following positive NIPS results for SCA, karyotype analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and locus‐specific quantitative PCR were performed on cultured amniocytes, chorionic villi cells, and stimulated lymphocytes. Review of large case series was performed to evaluate the NIPS positive rate, follow‐up rate of cytogenetic analysis, positive predictive value (PPV) for major types of SCA, and relative frequencies of subtypes of major SCA. RESULTS: Of the five cases with positive NIPS for SCA, case 1 showed a mosaic pattern of monosomy X and isodicentric Y; case 2 showed a mosaic pattern of monosomy X confined to the placenta; cases 3 and 4 had an isochromosome of Xq, and case 5 showed a derivative chromosome 14 from a Yq/14p translocation of maternal origin. Review of literature showed that mean positive rate of NIPS for SCA was 0.61%, follow‐up rate of cytogenetics analysis was 76%, and mean PPV for SCA was 48%. Mosaic patterns and structural rearrangements involving sex chromosomes were estimated in 3%–20% and 3% of SCA cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: These five cases further demonstrated the necessity to pursue follow‐up cytogenetic analysis to characterize mosaic patterns and structural abnormalities involving sex chromosomes and their value for prenatal genetic counseling. A workflow showing the performance of current NIPS and cytogenetic analysis for SCA was summarized. These results could facilitate an evidence‐based approach to guide prenatal diagnosis of SCA.