Prenatal diagnosis of mosaic trisomy 8 by amniocentesis in a fetus with ventriculomegaly and dysgenesis of the corpus callosum

Agenesis of the corpus callosum: What to tell expecting parents?

Agenesis of the corpus callosum (ACC) is one of the most common brain malformations, with an incidence estimated to range from 0.5 to 70 in 10,000 among the general population. Prenatal diagnosis is made via ultrasound; however, fetal MRI is useful to confirm or exclude the presence of associated cerebral abnormalities-mostly cortical malformations-that may affect postnatal prognosis. When no additional central nervous system (CNS) or extra CNS anomalies are identified and no genetic cause is found, an isolated ACC is diagnosed. Overall, in cases of ACC, an underlying genetic cause can be identified in up to 12.5% with chromosomal microarray (CMA) and up to 47% with whole exome sequencing (WES). In cases where ACC is the only anomaly detected, the yield of WES is 30%. Postnatal outcomes are variable and depend on whether the condition is isolated or not. In truly isolated ACC, outcomes range from normal in 65% of cases through mild to severe neurodevelopmental impairments in 35% of cases. An interdisciplinary team of medical experts is key in guiding parents toward informed decision-making in pregnancies complicated by ACC. Considering current and expected advancements in genetic testing and imaging technologies in upcoming years, we herein summarize current recommendations for the management and prenatal counseling of expecting parents of fetuses with ACC. Our review pertains primarily to expecting parents of fetuses with complete ACC.

Rare autosomal trisomies detected by non-invasive prenatal testing: an overview of current knowledge

Non-invasive prenatal testing has been introduced for the detection of Trisomy 13, 18, and 21. Using genome-wide screening also other "rare" autosomal trisomies (RATs) can be detected with a frequency about half the frequency of the common trisomies in the large population-based studies. Large prospective studies and clear clinical guidelines are lacking to provide adequate counseling and management to those who are confronted with a RAT as a healthcare professional or patient. In this review we reviewed the current knowledge of the most common RATs. We compiled clinical relevant parameters such as incidence, meiotic or mitotic origin, the risk of fetal (mosaic) aneuploidy, clinical manifestations of fetal mosaicism for a RAT, the effect of confined placental mosaicism on placental function and the risk of uniparental disomy (UPD). Finally, we identified gaps in the knowledge on RATs and highlight areas of future research. This overview may serve as a first guide for prenatal management for each of these RATs.

Effectiveness of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Echogenic Intracardiac Focus: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF) is a common ultrasound finding during pregnancy. However, the correlation between fetal EIF and cardiac abnormality remains in dispute until now. The study aimed to examine the association of fetal EIF with chromosomal abnormality by means of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 192 pregnant women with fetal EIF undergoing amniocentesis or umbilical cord blood puncture were recruited and assigned into groups A (8 cases with isolated EIF alone), B (75 cases with EIF and other cardiac malformations) and C (109 cases with EIF and extracardiac malformations). All fetuses underwent karyotyping analysis and CMA simultaneously. The detection of chromosomal abnormality and copy number variations (CNVs) were compared.

RESULTS

Chromosomal karyotyping identified 5 fetuses with chromosomal abnormality, including 3 cases with trisomy 21, one fetus with Turner's syndrome, and one fetus with chromosome 8 mosaicism, while CMA detected 6 additional fetuses with CNVs, including 2 fetuses with pathogenic CNVs and 4 fetuses with variants of uncertain significance (VOUS). There was no significant difference among groups A (0), B (5.33%) and C (6.42%) in terms of the prevalence of chromosomal abnormality (P> 0.05). Among the 4 fetuses with VOUS, pregnancy continued in 2 fetuses, and pregnancy was terminated in other 2 fetuses.

CONCLUSION

An isolated EIF may not correlate with chromosomal abnormality. However, CMA is recommended in fetuses with CMA complicated by other abnormal cardiac ultrasound findings, which facilitates the prediction of fetal outcomes during the genetic counseling and precision assessment of prognosis.

Chromosomal mosaicism: Origins and clinical implications in preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis

The diagnosis of chromosomal mosaicism in the preimplantation and prenatal stage is fraught with uncertainty and multiple factors need to be considered in order to gauge the likely impact. The clinical effects of chromosomal mosaicism are directly linked to the type of the imbalance (size, gene content, and copy number), the timing of the initial event leading to mosaicism during embryogenesis/fetal development, the distribution of the abnormal cells throughout the various tissues within the body as well as the ratio of normal/abnormal cells within each of those tissues. Additional factors such as assay noise and culture artifacts also have an impact on the significance and management of mosaic cases. Genetic counseling is an important part of educating patients about the likelihood of having a liveborn with a chromosome abnormality and these risks differ according to the time of ascertainment and the tissue where the mosaic cells were initially discovered. Each situation needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and counseled accordingly. This review will discuss the clinical impact of finding mosaicism through: embryo biopsy, chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis, and noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA.

Integrated CNV-seq, karyotyping and SNP-array analyses for effective prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal mosaicism

BACKGROUND

Emerging studies suggest that low-coverage massively parallel copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) more sensitive than chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for detecting low-level mosaicism. However, a retrospective back-to-back comparison evaluating accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of CNV-seq compared with CMA is warranted.

METHODS

A total of 72 mosaicism cases identified by karyotyping or CMA were recruited to the study. There were 67 mosaic samples co-analysed by CMA and CNV-seq, comprising 40 with sex chromosome aneuploidy, 22 with autosomal aneuploidy and 5 with large cryptic genomic rearrangements.

RESULTS

Of the 67 positive mosaic cases, the levels of mosaicism defined by CNV-seq ranged from 6 to 92% compared to the ratio from 3 to 90% by karyotyping and 20% to 72% by CMA. CNV-seq not only identified all 43 chromosomal aneuploidies or large cryptic genomic rearrangements detected by CMA, but also provided a 34.88% (15/43) increased yield compared with CMA. The improved yield of mosaicism detection by CNV-seq was largely due to the ability to detect low level mosaicism below 20%.

CONCLUSION

In the context of prenatal diagnosis, CNV-seq identified additional and clinically significant mosaicism with enhanced resolution and increased sensitivity. This study provides strong evidence for applying CNV-seq as an alternative to CMA for detection of aneuploidy and mosaic variants.

Chromosomal mosaicism detected by karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis

To investigate the incidence and clinical significance of chromosomal mosaicism (CM) in prenatal diagnosis by G‐banding karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). This is a single‐centre retrospective study of invasive prenatal diagnosis for CM. From 5758 karyotyping results and 6066 CMA results, 104 foetal cases with CM were selected and analysed further. In total, 50% (52/104) of foetal cases with CM were affected by ultrasound‐detectable phenotypes. Regardless of whether they were singleton or twin pregnancies, isolated structural defects in one system (51.35%, 19/37 in singletons; 86.67%, 13/15 in twins) and a single soft marker (18.92%, 7/37 in singletons; 13.33%, 2/15 in twins) were the most common ultrasound anomalies. Mosaic autosomal trisomy (19.23%, 20/104) was the most frequent type, and its rate was higher in phenotypic foetuses (28.85%, 15/52) than in non‐phenotypic foetuses (9.62%, 5/52). There was no difference in mosaic fractions between phenotypic and non‐phenotypic foetuses based on specimen sources or overall classification. Discordant mosaic results were observed in 16 cases (15.38%, 16/104) from different specimens or different testing methods. Genetic counselling and clinical management regarding CM in prenatal diagnosis remain challenging due to the variable phenotypes and unclear significance. Greater caution should be used in prenatal counselling, and more comprehensive assays involving serial ultrasound examinations, different specimens or testing methods verifications and follow‐up should be applied.