Microarray findings in pregnancies with oligohydramnios - a retrospective cohort study and literature review

Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis and whole exome sequencing in foetuses with oligohydramnios

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and whole exome sequencing (WES) in foetuses with oligohydramnios.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 126 fetuses with oligohydramnios at our centre from 2018 to 2021 were reviewed. The results of CMA and WES were analysed.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four cases underwent CMA and 32 cases underwent WES. The detection rate of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) copy number variant (CNV) by CMA was 1.6% (2/124). WES revealed P/LP variants in 21.8% (7/32) of the foetuses. Six (85.7%, 6/7) foetuses showed an autosomal recessive inheritance pattern. Three (42.9%, 3/7) variants were involved in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which are the known genetic causes of autosomal recessive renal tubular dysgenesis (ARRTD).

CONCLUSION

CMA has low diagnostic utility for oligohydramnios, while WES offers obvious advantages in improving the detection rate. WES should be recommended for fetuses with oligohydramnios.

Assessment of Amniotic Fluid Volume in Pregnancy

Amniotic fluid (AF) is an integral part of the fetal environment and is essential for fetal growth and development. Pathways of AF recirculation include the fetal lungs, swallowing, absorption through the fetal gastrointestinal tract, excretion through fetal urine production, and movement. In addition to being a marker for fetal health, adequate AF is necessary for fetal lung development, growth, and movement. The role of diagnostic imaging is to provide a detailed fetal survey, placental evaluation, and clinical correlation with maternal conditions to help identify causes of AF abnormalities and thereby enable specific therapy. Oligohydramnios prompts evaluation for fetal growth restriction as well as genitourinary issues, including renal agenesis, multicystic dysplastic kidneys, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, and bladder outlet obstruction. Premature preterm rupture of membranes should also be clinically excluded as a cause of oligohydramnios. Clinical trials evaluating amnioinfusion are underway as a potential intervention for renal causes of oligohydramnios. Most cases of polyhydramnios are idiopathic, with maternal diabetes being a common cause. Polyhydramnios prompts evaluation for fetal gastrointestinal obstruction and oropharyngeal or thoracic masses, as well as neurologic or musculoskeletal anomalies. Amnioreduction is performed only for maternal indications such as symptomatic polyhydramnios causing maternal respiratory distress. Polyhydramnios with fetal growth restriction is paradoxical and can occur with maternal diabetes and hypertension. When these maternal conditions are absent, this raises concern for aneuploidy. The authors describe the pathways of AF production and circulation, US and MRI assessment of AF, disease-specific disruption of AF pathways, and an algorithmic approach to AF abnormalities. ^©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

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.

Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Pregnancies With Corpus Callosum or Posterior Fossa Anomalies

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the detection rate of clinically significant chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) results in pregnancies with sonographic diagnosis of fetal corpus callosum anomalies (CCA) or posterior fossa anomalies (PFA).

METHODS

All CMA tests in pregnancies with CCA or PFA performed between January 2015 and June 2020 were retrospectively evaluated from the Israeli Ministry of Health database. The rate of CMA with clinically significant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) findings was calculated and compared to a local Israeli cohort of 5,541 pregnancies with normal ultrasound.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-two pregnancies were enrolled: 102 cases with CCA and 89 with PFA (9 cases had both). Clinically significant CMA results were found in 7/102 of CCA (6.9%) and in 7/89 of PFA (7.9%) cases. The CMA detection rate in pregnancies with isolated CCA (2/57, 3.5%) or PFA (2/50, 4.0%) was lower than in nonisolated cases, including additional CNS and/or extra-CNS sonographic anomalies (CCA-5/45, 11.1%; PFA-5/39, 12.8%), but this was not statistically significant. However, the rate among pregnancies that had extra-CNS anomalies, with or without additional CNS involvement (CCA-5/24, 20.8%; PFA-5/29, 17.2%), was significantly higher compared to all other cases (p = 0.0075 for CCA; p = 0.035 for PFA). Risk of CMA with clinically significant results for all and nonisolated CCA or PFA pregnancies was higher compared to the background risk reported in the control cohort (p < 0.001), but was not significant for isolated cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that CMA testing is beneficial for the genetic workup of pregnancies with CCA or PFA, and is probably most informative when additional extra-CNS anomalies are observed.

The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed using G-banding and CMA analysis used the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K SNP microarray.

RESULT

Thirteen cases with aneuploid chromosome mosaicism were detected and compared between the karyotype and CMA methods. Seven of these cases were trisomic mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism calculated from CMA were higher than those detected from karyotype analysis; noting three cases of trisomy mosaicism were not detected by karyotype analysis. Four cases exhibited monomeric mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism detected in three of these cases were higher in karyotype compared with CMA analysis; one case had equivalent levels of monomeric mosaicism from both karyotype and CMA analysis. Two other cases from karyotype analysis were a mix of monosomic and trisomic mosaicism, whereas the CMA result was restricted to monosomic mosaicism for these cases.

CONCLUSION

Both karyotype and CMA analysis can be used to detect aneuploid chromosome mosaicism. However, the two methods produced different results. CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages in detecting aneuploid mosaicism, and the combination of these methods provides a more rigorous diagnosis.