ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to understand the diagnostic utility of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)-based microarrays for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 2858 pregnancies with abnormal ultrasounds and normal karyotypes (when performed) tested in our laboratory using CGH microarrays targeted to known chromosomal syndromes with later versions providing backbone coverage of the entire genome. Abnormalities were stratified according to organ system involvement. Detection rates for clinically significant findings among these categories were calculated.ResultsClinically significant genomic alterations were identified in cases with a single ultrasound anomaly (n = 99/1773, 5.6%), anomalies in two or more organ systems (n = 77/808, 9.5%), isolated growth abnormalities (n = 2/76, 2.6%), and soft markers (n = 2/77, 2.6%). The following anomalies in isolation or with additional anomalies had particularly high detection rates: holoprosencephaly (n = 9/85, 10.6%), posterior fossa defects (n = 21/144, 14.6%), skeletal anomalies (n = 15/140, 10.7%), ventricular septal defect (n = 14/132, 10.6%), hypoplastic left heart (n = 11/68, 16.2%), and cleft lip/palate (n = 14/136, 10.3%).ConclusionsMicroarray analysis identified clinically significant genomic alterations in 6.5% of cases with one or more abnormal ultrasound findings; the majority were below the resolution of karyotyping. Larger data sets such as this allow for sub-stratification by specific anomalies to determine risks for genomic alterations detectable by microarray analysis. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ObjectiveTo demonstrate the usefulness of microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis based on our laboratory experience.MethodsPrenatal samples received from 2004 to 2011 for a variety of indications (n = 5003) were tested using comparative genomic hybridization-based microarrays targeted to known chromosomal syndromes with later versions of the microarrays providing backbone coverage of the entire genome.ResultsThe overall detection rate of clinically significant copy number alterations (CNAs) among unbiased, nondemise cases was 5.3%. Detection rates were 6.5% and 8.2% for cases referred with abnormal ultrasounds and fetal demise, respectively. The overall rate of findings with unclear clinical significance was 4.2% but would reduce to 0.39% if only de novo CNAs were considered. In cases with known chromosomal rearrangements in the fetus or parent, 41.1% showed CNAs related to the rearrangements, whereas 1.3% showed clinically significant CNAs unrelated to the karyotype. Finally, 71% of the clinically significant CNAs found by microarray were below the resolution of conventional karyotyping of fetal chromosomes.ConclusionsMicroarray analysis has advantages over conventional cytogenetics, including the ability to more precisely characterize CNAs associated with abnormal karyotypes. Moreover, a significant proportion of cases studied by array will show a clinically significant CNA even with apparently normal karyotypes. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Deletions at 2p16.3 involving exons of NRXN1 are associated with susceptibility for autism and schizophrenia, and similar deletions have been identified in individuals with developmental delay and dysmorphic features. We have identified 34 probands with exonic NRXN1 deletions following referral for clinical microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization. To more firmly establish the full phenotypic spectrum associated with exonic NRXN1 deletions, we report the clinical features of 27 individuals with NRXN1 deletions, who represent 23 of these 34 families. The frequency of exonic NRXN1 deletions among our postnatally diagnosed patients (0.11%) is significantly higher than the frequency among reported controls (0.02%; P = 6.08 × 10(-7) ), supporting a role for these deletions in the development of abnormal phenotypes. Generally, most individuals with NRXN1 exonic deletions have developmental delay (particularly speech), abnormal behaviors, and mild dysmorphic features. In our cohort, autism spectrum disorders were diagnosed in 43% (10/23), and 16% (4/25) had epilepsy. The presence of NRXN1 deletions in normal parents and siblings suggests reduced penetrance and/or variable expressivity, which may be influenced by genetic, environmental, and/or stochastic factors. The pathogenicity of these deletions may also be affected by the location of the deletion within the gene. Counseling should appropriately represent this spectrum of possibilities when discussing recurrence risks or expectations for a child found to have a deletion in NRXN1.

Objective To demonstrate the usefulness of microarray testing in prenatal diagnosis based on our laboratory experience.Methods Prenatal samples received from 2004 to 2011 for a variety of indications (n = 5003) were tested using comparative genomic hybridization-based microarrays targeted to known chromosomal syndromes with later versions of the microarrays providing backbone coverage of the entire genome.Results The overall detection rate of clinically significant copy number alterations (CNAs) among unbiased, nondemise cases was 5.3%. Detection rates were 6.5% and 8.2% for cases referred with abnormal ultrasounds and fetal demise, respectively. The overall rate of findings with unclear clinical significance was 4.2% but would reduce to 0.39% if only de novo CNAs were considered. In cases with known chromosomal rearrangements in the fetus or parent, 41.1% showed CNAs related to the rearrangements, whereas 1.3% showed clinically significant CNAs unrelated to the karyotype. Finally, 71% of the clinically significant CNAs found by microarray were below the resolution of conventional karyotyping of fetal chromosomes.Conclusions Microarray analysis has advantages over conventional cytogenetics, including the ability to more precisely characterize CNAs associated with abnormal karyotypes. Moreover, a significant proportion of cases studied by array will show a clinically significant CNA even with apparently normal karyotypes.

Referral patterns varied between the countries and between indications for study. Understanding these differences will provide laboratories the critical information needed to develop array designs to meet the medical needs and patient desires for prenatal testing.