Prenatal Screening for Aneuploidies Using QF-PCR and Karyotyping: A Comprehensive Study in Iranian Population

PCR vs karyotype for CVS and amniocentesis-the experience at one tertiary fetal medicine unit

Purpose

Despite the rise of non-invasive screening tests for fetal aneuploidy, invasive testing during pregnancy remains the definitive diagnostic tool for fetal genetic anomalies. Results are rapidly available with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, but cases have been reported whereby initial results were not confirmed after pregnancy termination and the fetal karyotype was ultimately normal. We sought to examine the potential discordance between PCR and karyotype for fetal aneuploidy.

Methods

The results from all amniocentesis and CVS tests performed over a 6-year period in a large tertiary level fetal medicine unit were reviewed. The results of PCR and karyotype were recorded and discrepancies examined. Pregnancy outcomes were also recorded.

Results

A total of 1222 invasive tests were performed (716 amniocentesis and 506 CVS). Within the cohort having amniocentesis, 11 had discrepant results (normal QF-PCR result but with a subsequent abnormal karyotype). There was 1 case among this group which QF-PCR should have identified. Within the CVS group, 7 patients had discrepant results. All had a diploid QF-PCR and would not have been identified as abnormal by it.

Conclusion

PCR can be reliably used to determine aneuploidy of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21. However, in cases of sex chromosome aneuploidy, its performance is less reliable and warrants waiting for a complete karyotype. Given such discordance, we advise waiting for karyotype for all invasive tests performed in the presence of a normal ultrasound before advising a patient of a diploid QF-PCR result or potentially terminating a normal pregnancy.

Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases

Background

Pregnancy loss affects 10%–15% of pregnancies and is caused by several factors, maternal and fetal. Most common cause is chromosomal aneuploidy and has traditionally been detected by karyotyping product of conception and/or fetal tissue. In recent years, array comparative genomic hybridization (a‐CGH) has been used because of its higher detection and lower failure rates.

Methods

DNA was extracted from 1625 products of abortion or fetal tissue. In 1,104 cases both quantitative fluorescent‐polymerase chain reaction (QF‐PCR) and a‐CGH, and in 521 cases only a‐CGH, was performed.

Results

The detection rate using QF‐PCR and a‐CGH is 20% compared to 12.7%, overall, and 15.7%, excluding failed samples, by karyotypes in our center. QF‐PCR and a‐CGH failed in 1.9% of cases, while the failure rate for karyotypes was 20.1%. The difference of detection and failure rates is significant (p‐value < 0.001 and p‐value < 0.001 respectively). Unexpectedly we also found a significant difference in frequency of imbalances in related versus unrelated couples. (χ² = 11.4926, p‐value < 0.001).

Conclusion

It is highly likely that the pregnancy loss in consanguineous couples is caused by other genetic and immune mechanisms. It is plausible that, through the same mechanism by which single gene disorders have a higher prevalence of manifesting disease in consanguineous couples, they can cause lethal genetic disorders leading to pregnancy loss and intra‐uterine fetal death (IUFD) in these couples. Our findings suggest that this is a matter for further study as it will greatly influence the approach to counseling and managing consanguineous couples with pregnancy loss.

High accuracy of quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction combined with non-invasive pre-natal testing for mid-pregnancy diagnosis of common fetal aneuploidies: A single-center experience in China

Quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) may be used as a mid-pregnancy test to confirm the diagnosis of common fetal aneuploidies, but its use is controversial. The present study aimed to determine the value of QF-PCR for diagnostic confirmation of karyotyping and the impact of parental origin and meiosis stage on the detected aneuploidy. The present prospective cohort study included pregnant women (age, 21-45 years; gestational age, 17-25 weeks) who consulted between May 2015 and December 2016. Women were screened and only consecutive high-risk individuals were included (n=428). QF-PCR analysis of amniocytes was performed. Karyotype analysis was considered the gold standard. Parental karyotyping was performed if the embryo exhibited any aneuploidy. GeneMapper 3.2 was used for data analysis. There were no false-negative or false-positive QF-PCR results, with 100% concordance with the karyotype. The aneuploidy distribution (n=105) was 68.6% for trisomy 21, 19.0% for trisomy 18, 7.6% for sex chromosome aneuploidy, 3.8% for trisomy 13 and 1.0% for 48,XXX,+18. Regarding trisomy 21, most cases (86.1%) were of maternal origin, 8.3% paternal and 6.5% undefined. Trisomy 18 was 88.2% maternal and 11.8% paternal. Maternal meiosis stage errors in trisomy 21 mainly occurred in meiosis I, while the origin of trisomy 18 exhibited similar proportions between meiosis I and II. The combination of non-invasive pre-natal testing and QF-PCR may become a rapid and effective method for fetal aneuploidy detection. QF-PCR may provide more genetic information for clinical diagnosis and treatment than karyotyping alone.

Validation of QF-PCR for prenatal diagnoses in a Brazilian population

OBJECTIVES:

Quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) is a rapid and reliable method for screening aneuploidies, but in Brazil, it is not used in public services. We investigated the accuracy of QF-PCR for the prenatal recognition of common aneuploidies and compared these results with cytogenetic results in our laboratory.

METHOD:

A ChromoQuant QF-PCR kit containing 24 primer pairs targeting loci on chromosomes 21, 13, 18, X and Y was employed to identify aneuploidies of the referred chromosomes.

RESULTS:

A total of 162 amniotic fluid samples analyzed using multiplex QF-PCR were compared with karyotyping analysis. The QF-PCR results were consistent with the results of cytogenetic analysis in 95.4% of all samples.

CONCLUSION:

QF-PCR was demonstrated to be efficient and reliable for prenatal aneuploidy screening. This study suggests that QF-PCR can be used as a rapid diagnostic method. However, rearrangements and some mosaic samples cannot be detected with this test; thus, those exceptions must undergo cytogenetic analysis.