The main factor influencing the sex determination of an embryo is the genetic sex determined by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome. However, some individuals carry a Y chromosome but are phenotypically female (46,XY females) or have a female karyotype but are phenotypically male (46,XX males). 46,XX maleness is a rare sex reversal syndrome affecting 1 in 20,000 newborn males. Molecular analysis of sex-reversed patients led to the discovery of the SRY gene (sex-determining region on Y). The presence of SRY causes the bipotential gonad to develop into a testis. The majority of 46, SRY-positive XX males have normal genitalia; in contrast SRY-negative XX males usually have genital ambiguity. A small number of SRY-positive XX males also present with ambiguous genitalia. Phenotypic variability observed in 46,XX sex reversed patients cannot be explained only by the presence or absence of SRY despite the fact that SRY is considered to be the major regulatory factor for testis determination. There must be some other genes either in the Y or other autosomal chromosomes involved in the definition of phenotype. In this article, we evaluate four patients with 46,XX male syndrome with various phenotypes. Two of these cases are among the first reported to be diagnosed prenatally.

Currently, accepted protocol which has been developed at the Prenatal Diagnosis Laboratory of New York City (PDL) requires that when a chromosome abnormality is found in one or more cells in one flask, another 20-40 cells must be examined from one or two additional flasks. Chromosome mosaicism is diagnosed only when an identical abnormality is detected in cells from two or more flasks. In a recent PDL series of 12,000 cases studied according to this protocol, we diagnosed 801 cases (6.68 per cent) of single-cell pseudomosaicism (SCPM), 126 cases (1.05 per cent) of multiple-cell pseudomosaicism (MCPM), and 24 cases (0.2 per cent) of true mosaicism. Pseudomosaicism (PM) involving a structural abnormality was a frequent finding (2/3 of SCPM and 3/5 of MCPM), with an unbalanced structural abnormality in 55 per cent of SCPM and 24 per cent of MCPM. We also reviewed all true mosaic cases (a total of 50) diagnosed in the first 22,000 PDL cases. Of these 50 cases, 23 were sex chromosome mosaics and 27 had autosomal mosaicism; 48 cases had numerical abnormalities and two had structural abnormalities. Twenty-five cases of mosaicism were diagnosed in the first 20 cells from two flasks, i.e., without additional work-up, whereas the other 25 cases required extensive work-up to establish a diagnosis (12 needed additional cell counts from the initial two culture flasks; 13 required harvesting a third flask for cell analysis). Our data plus review of other available data led us to conclude that rigorous efforts to diagnose true mosaicism have little impact in many instances, and therefore are not cost-effective. On the basis of all available data, a work-up for potential mosaicism involving a sex chromosome aneuploidy or structural abnormality should have less priority than a work-up for a common viable autosomal trisomy. We recommend revised guidelines for dealing with (1) a numerical versus a structural abnormality and (2) an autosomal versus a sex chromosome numerical aneuploidy. Emphasis should be placed on autosomes known to be associated with phenotypic abnormalities. These new guidelines, which cover both flask and in situ methods, should result in more effective prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis and reduced patient anxiety.

Our objective was to examine ultrasound findings with outcomes in cases of rare chromosomal abnormalities diagnosed during pregnancy. Results of cytogenetic studies obtained from amniocenteses and chorionic villus samplings (CVS) from 1994-2000 were reviewed. Only those examples of rare chromosomal abnormalities with little information on the associated outcome were included. Cases of autosomal trisomy (13, 18, and 21), sex chromosome aneuploidy, and reciprocal or Robertsonian translocations were excluded. Ultrasound findings and outcomes were reviewed. In all, 8,642 procedures of amniocenteses and 557 of CVS were performed; 21 cases met the inclusion criteria. Parental karyotypes were obtained for 19 couples and the karyotypic abnormalities were de novo in 13. Abnormal ultrasound findings were present in 14 pregnancies, with the following outcomes: seven underwent dilatation and evacuation (D&E), with abnormal findings in two (although examination was limited by fragmentation); one medical termination with micrognathia and low-set ears; one fetal demise; one neonatal demise; three surviving neonates with abnormalities (one each with congenital kyphosis, hydronephrosis, and hypotonia), and one newborn was normal. There were seven patients without abnormal ultrasound findings with the following outcomes: three underwent D&E, with abnormal findings in two, one child with a colobomatous optic nerve, and two apparently normal infants. Follow-up was not available in one patient. We conclude that when rare karyotypes and ultrasound abnormalities are present, poor outcomes are likely. Even with normal ultrasound findings, abnormalities may be present. These data may assist in counseling patients when testing reveals such chromosomal abnormalities.