Cytogenetic diagnoses after chorionic villus sampling are less reliable in very-high-or very-low-risk pregnancies

(Potential) false-negative diagnoses in chorionic villi and a review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of (potential) false-negative findings of cytogenetic diagnosis in STC-villi and/or LTC-villi and to determine the best strategy for karyotyping chorionic villi in order to avoid false-negative results.

METHODS

2476 chorionic villus samples were received for prenatal cytogenetic investigations. Karyotyping was routinely performed on STC- and LTC-villi preparations by G-banding. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses were performed in addition to standard chromosome analysis when necessary. Sometimes follow-up investigations like amniocentesis were performed before a definite prenatal cytogenetic result could be reported.

RESULTS

In 2389/2476 (96.5%) of the cases, both STC- and LTC-villi were investigated. Normal STC- with abnormal LTC-villi results and finally an abnormal fetal karyotype were detected in ten cases (10/2389; 0.42%); in 9/10 of the cases the indication was fetal ultrasound abnormalities. Normal STC- and LTC-villi and finally an abnormal fetal karyotype were detected in two cases (2/2389; 0.08%).

CONCLUSION

The most reliable technique for prenatal diagnosis after chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is the combination of the analysis of both STC- and LTC-villi to reduce the incidence of false-negative findings to a minimum. In the case of fetal ultrasound abnormalities with a small amount of villi available, the investigation of LTC-villi is recommended over that of STC-villi.

Abnormal karyotypes in semi-direct chorionic villus preparations of women with different cytogenetic risks

Among 3499 cytogenetically investigated semi-direct chorionic villus samples, 219 (6.3 per cent) abnormal karyotypes were encountered. The karyotypes were considered certainly abnormal (generalized abnormal with high probability) in 109 cases (3.1 per cent), and in 110 cases (3.1 per cent) uncertainly abnormal (potentially confined to the placenta), requiring further investigation. Of these 110 uncertain abnormalities, the cytogenetic result turned out to be finally abnormal representing generalized abnormality in 36 cases (32.7 per cent), finally normal representing confined placental mosaicism (CPM) in 69 cases (62.7 per cent), and remained undetermined in 5 instances (4.5 per cent). The rate of the numbers of certainly abnormal and all (certainly + uncertainly) abnormal results, the certainty rate, and that of generalized abnormalities and all abnormalities (generalized abnormalities + CPM cases), the predictive value, are strongly correlated with the cytogenetic risk. Therefore, we advise chorionic villus sampling for cytogenetic investigation only in women with a cytogenetic risk equal to or exceeding that of a 40-year-old pregnant woman. Because of the high rate of prenatal follow-up investigations after the finding of uncertain results in semi-direct villi, semi-direct and cultured villi should be karyotyped simultaneously.

Accuracy of cytogenetic findings on chorionic villus sampling (CVS)--diagnostic consequences of CVS mosaicism and non-mosaic discrepancy in centres contributing to EUCROMIC 1986-1992

Of 62,865 karyotyped chorionic villus (CV) samples that were reported to EUCROMIC 1986-1992, 98.5 per cent showed either a normal karyotype (true negative result; 94.8 per cent of the total) or a non-mosaic chromosomal aberration (true positive non-mosaic result; 3.7 per cent). True fetal mosaicism was diagnosed in about 0.15 per cent of the 62,865 CV samples, while confined placental mosaicism (CPM) occurred in 1.0 per cent. False-positive non-mosaic aberrations were observed in 0.15 per cent and false-negative CVS (chorionic villus sampling) results in only 0.03 per cent. The remaining 0.15 per cent of the CVS results were unclassifiable. These figures determined a sensitivity of CVS for prenatal detection of chromosome aberrations of 98.9-99.6 per cent (95 per cent confidence intervals), a specificity of 98.5-98.8 per cent, a positive predictive value of 72.6-78.3 per cent, and a negative predictive value of 99.95-99.98 per cent. False-positive non-mosaic aberrations that could not from the outset be suspected of being confined to the placenta were very rare (0.07 per cent of CV samples). They most often involved non-mosaic monosomy X and trisomy 18 encountered after direct preparation alone. False-negative CVS results were extremely rare (0.03 per cent) and occurred, with only one exception, after direct preparation alone. Thirteen of the 19 false-negative CVS diagnoses were from pregnancies at a particularly high risk for fetal chromosomal aberration. Seventy-five per cent of the pregnancies with CVS mosaicism or non-mosaic discrepancy and known outcome continued to livebirth. When CVS mosaicism was encountered, the definitive prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis was most often obtained through subsequent amniocentesis. However, the use of amniocentesis and the frequency of pregnancy termination depended on the type of chromosomal aberration involved. We conclude that CVS is an accurate method for prenatal chromosome analysis. In pregnancies at high risk for fetal chromosomal abnormality, we recommend, however, not relying solely on a normal karyotype obtained after direct preparation alone.