Cargando…

Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?

PURPOSE: We retrospectively analyzed the results of prenatal diagnosis in women with high-risk (HR) serological screening results, and discussed the reasonable application of diagnostic testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic testing was done in 2239 pregnant women who had HR results from serologi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Jing, Tang, Xin-xin, Zhou, Qin, Yang, Shuting, Shi, Ye, Yu, Bin, Zhang, Bin, Wang, Lei-lei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34588820
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S324529
_version_ 1784575052935593984
author Wang, Jing
Tang, Xin-xin
Zhou, Qin
Yang, Shuting
Shi, Ye
Yu, Bin
Zhang, Bin
Wang, Lei-lei
author_facet Wang, Jing
Tang, Xin-xin
Zhou, Qin
Yang, Shuting
Shi, Ye
Yu, Bin
Zhang, Bin
Wang, Lei-lei
author_sort Wang, Jing
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We retrospectively analyzed the results of prenatal diagnosis in women with high-risk (HR) serological screening results, and discussed the reasonable application of diagnostic testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic testing was done in 2239 pregnant women who had HR results from serological screening in two prenatal diagnosis centers. According to the HR results, they were divided into simple HR, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups. After receiving counselling from clinicians, they were allowed to choose either the traditional karyotype analysis and/or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Those who underwent CMA comprised 49.3%, 97.6%, and 100% of the HR group, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups, respectively. Among the 100 (4.47%) clinically significant results, 55 (2.46%), 15 (0.67%), and 30 (1.34%) were chromosomal aneuploidies, chromosomal structural abnormalities, and pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs), respectively. The rate of abnormalities was 3.77%, 13.71%, and 19.05% in the simple HR, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups, respectively. The increasing rate of clinical pathogenic CNVs was 1.34% using CMA in HR pregnant women, 9.52% in the HR combined with other indication group, and 1.24% in the simple HR group. Among the 573 women who chose both diagnostic tests, 45 had abnormal results. Only one case detected using karyotype analysis was missed on CMA. The incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy tended to increase with increase in HR values. However, chromosomal structural abnormalities and pathogenic CNVs did not increase. CONCLUSION: CMA should be recommended as the first-line diagnostic testing for women with HR screening results, especially combined with other abnormal indications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8473719
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84737192021-09-28 Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select? Wang, Jing Tang, Xin-xin Zhou, Qin Yang, Shuting Shi, Ye Yu, Bin Zhang, Bin Wang, Lei-lei Int J Womens Health Original Research PURPOSE: We retrospectively analyzed the results of prenatal diagnosis in women with high-risk (HR) serological screening results, and discussed the reasonable application of diagnostic testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic testing was done in 2239 pregnant women who had HR results from serological screening in two prenatal diagnosis centers. According to the HR results, they were divided into simple HR, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups. After receiving counselling from clinicians, they were allowed to choose either the traditional karyotype analysis and/or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Those who underwent CMA comprised 49.3%, 97.6%, and 100% of the HR group, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups, respectively. Among the 100 (4.47%) clinically significant results, 55 (2.46%), 15 (0.67%), and 30 (1.34%) were chromosomal aneuploidies, chromosomal structural abnormalities, and pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs), respectively. The rate of abnormalities was 3.77%, 13.71%, and 19.05% in the simple HR, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups, respectively. The increasing rate of clinical pathogenic CNVs was 1.34% using CMA in HR pregnant women, 9.52% in the HR combined with other indication group, and 1.24% in the simple HR group. Among the 573 women who chose both diagnostic tests, 45 had abnormal results. Only one case detected using karyotype analysis was missed on CMA. The incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy tended to increase with increase in HR values. However, chromosomal structural abnormalities and pathogenic CNVs did not increase. CONCLUSION: CMA should be recommended as the first-line diagnostic testing for women with HR screening results, especially combined with other abnormal indications. Dove 2021-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8473719/ /pubmed/34588820 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S324529 Text en © 2021 Wang et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Wang, Jing
Tang, Xin-xin
Zhou, Qin
Yang, Shuting
Shi, Ye
Yu, Bin
Zhang, Bin
Wang, Lei-lei
Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
title Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
title_full Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
title_fullStr Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
title_full_unstemmed Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
title_short Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
title_sort prenatal diagnostic testing following high-risk result from serological screening: which shall we select?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34588820
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S324529
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjing prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT tangxinxin prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT zhouqin prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT yangshuting prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT shiye prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT yubin prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT zhangbin prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect
AT wangleilei prenataldiagnostictestingfollowinghighriskresultfromserologicalscreeningwhichshallweselect