Clinical Application of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Pregnant Women with Advanced Maternal Age and Fetuses with Ultrasonographic Soft Markers

Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis and karyotyping in fetuses with isolated choroid plexus cyst: A retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the the diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with isolated CPC (iCPC).

METHODS

A total of 315 fetuses with iCPC (iCPC group) and 364 fetuses without abnormal ultrasound findings (control group) were recruited between July 2014 to March 2018.

RESULTS

The overall diagnostic yield of chromosomal abnormalities by CMA and karyotyping in iCPC group was up to 4.1 %, higher than 1.4 % in the control group, p < 0.05. The detection rate of pathogenic or likely pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) with clinical significance by CMA in iCPC group (1.3 %) was higher than in control group (0 %), p < 0.05. According to the type of chromosome abnormalities, the missed diagnosis rate of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was 1.6 % in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of iCPC on ultrasound examination suggests a potential indication for genetic counseling. Karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis may be considered for fetuses with iCPC. It is important to be aware of the limitations of non-invasive prenatal testing, as there is a possibility of residual risk.

Clinical Experience of Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in 6159 Ultrasonically Abnormal Fetuses

A single-center retrospective study of G-band karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for the invasive prenatal diagnosis of 6159 fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities was conducted. This study aimed to investigate the incidence rates of chromosomal abnormalities and pregnancy outcomes and postpartum clinical manifestations by long-term follow-up and to explore the correlation between different types of prenatal ultrasound abnormalities and pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities. The overall incidence of pathogenic chromosomal aberrations in fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities was 7.58% (467/6159), which comprised 41.7% (195/467) with chromosome number abnormalities, 57.6% (269/467) with pathogenic copy-number variations (pCNVs), and 0.64% (3/467) with uniparental disomy (UPD). In addition, 1.72% (106/6159) with likely pathogenic copy-number variations (lpCNVs) and 3.04% (187/6159) with variants of unknown significance (VOUS) were detected by CMA. Ultrasound abnormalities were categorized into structural anomalies and soft marker anomalies. The incidence rate of pathogenic and likely pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher among fetuses with structural anomalies than soft markers (11.13% vs 7.59%, p < 0.01). We retrospectively analyzed the prenatal genetic outcomes for a large cohort of fetuses with different types of ultrasound abnormalities. The present study showed that the chromosomal abnormality rate and clinical outcomes of fetuses with different types of ultrasound abnormalities varied greatly. Our data have important implications for prenatal genetic counseling for fetuses with different types of ultrasound abnormalities.

Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers

Objective

This study aimed to assess the utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities among fetuses presenting ultrasonic soft markers (USMs).

Methods

A retrospective observational study, spanning from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022, enrolled 539 singleton pregnant women with fetal USMs at our center. Of these, 418 cases (77.6%) underwent NIPT, while 121 cases (22.4%) opted for invasive prenatal diagnosis post-appropriate genetic counseling. Cases with high-risk NIPT results proceeded to invasive prenatal diagnosis, where conventional karyotyping and CMA were concurrently performed. Further stratification was done based on the number of USMs, classifying cases into single-USM and multiple-USM groups.

Results

Of the 24 cases (4.5%) exhibiting abnormal findings, 17 presented numerical chromosomal abnormalities, 2 featured clinically significant copy number variations (CNVs), 3 showed variants of unknown significance (VOUS), 1 displayed LOH, and 1 exhibited chromosome nine inversion. Notably, 18 cases (75%) theoretically detectable by karyotyping (eg, sizes above 10Mb) and 16 cases (66.7%) detectable by NIPT for five common aneuploidies were identified. Six submicroscopic findings (25%) were exclusively detectable by CMA. The predominant clinically relevant aberrations were observed in the thickened nuchal-translucency (TNT) group (9/35, 25.7%), followed by the multiple soft markers group (3/32, 9.3%). In the NIPT group, the false positive rate was 1.22%, and the false negative rate was 0%.

Conclusion

The prevalence of chromosome aneuploidy exceeded that of submicroscopic chromosomal imbalance in pregnant women with fetal USMs. NIPT demonstrated efficacy, particularly for soft markers like echogenic intracardiac focus. However, for those with TNT and multiple soft markers, invasive prenatal diagnosis, including CMA testing, is recommended as the primary investigative approach.

Prenatal Diagnosis Using Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in High-Risk Pregnancies

Background: To assess the value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) during the prenatal diagnosis of high-risk pregnancies. Methods: Between January 2016 and November 2021, we included 178 chorionic villi and 859 amniocentesis samples from consecutive cases at a multiple tertiary hospital. Each of these high-risk singleton pregnancies had at least one of the following indications: (1) advanced maternal age (AMA; ≥35 years; 546, 52.7%); (2) fetal structural abnormality on ultrasound (197, 19.0%); (3) high-risk first- or second-trimester Down syndrome screen (189, 18.2%), including increased nuchal translucency (≥3.5 mm; 90, 8.7%); or (4) previous pregnancy, child, or family history (105, 10.1%) affected by chromosomal abnormality or genetic disorder. Both G-banding karyotype analysis and CMA were performed. DNA was extracted directly and examined with oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Results: Aneuploidies were detected by both G-banding karyotyping and CMA in 42/1037 (4.05%) cases. Among the 979 cases with normal karyotypes, 110 (10.6%) cases had copy number variants (CNVs) in CMA, including 30 (2.9%) cases with reported pathogenic and likely pathogenic CNVs ≥ 400 kb, 37 (3.6%) with nonreported VOUS, benign, or likely benign CNVs ≥ 400 kb, and 43 (4.1%) with nonreported CNVs < 400 kb. Of the 58 (5.6%) cases with aneuploidy rearrangements, 42 (4.1%) were diagnosed by both G-banding karyotyping and CMA; four inversions, six balanced translocations, and six low mosaic rates were not detected with CMA. Conclusions: CMA is an effective first step for the prenatal diagnosis of high-risk pregnancies with fetal structural anomalies found in ultrasonography or upon positive findings.

Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Fetal malformations occur in 2-3% of pregnancies. They require invasive procedures for cytogenetics and molecular testing. "Structural anomalies" include non-transient anatomic alterations. "Soft markers" are often transient minor ultrasound findings. Anomalies not fitting these definitions are categorized as "dynamic". This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic yield and the rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in fetuses undergoing molecular testing (chromosomal microarray (CMA), exome sequencing (ES), genome sequencing (WGS)) due to ultrasound findings. The CMA diagnostic yield was 2.15% in single soft markers (vs. 0.79% baseline risk), 3.44% in multiple soft markers, 3.66% in single structural anomalies and 8.57% in multiple structural anomalies. Rates for specific subcategories vary significantly. ES showed a diagnostic rate of 19.47%, reaching 27.47% in multiple structural anomalies. WGS data did not allow meta-analysis. In fetal structural anomalies, CMA is a first-tier test, but should be integrated with karyotype and parental segregations. In this class of fetuses, ES presents a very high incremental yield, with a significant VUSs burden, so we encourage its use in selected cases. Soft markers present heterogeneous CMA results from each other, some of them with risks comparable to structural anomalies, and would benefit from molecular analysis. The diagnostic rate of multiple soft markers poses a solid indication to CMA.