Background Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis. Methods Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central karyotyping laboratory. Each sample was split in two; standard karyotyping was performed on one portion and the other was sent to one of four laboratories for chromosomal microarray. Results We enrolled a total of 4406 women. Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), abnormal result on Down’s syndrome screening (18.8%), structural anomalies on ultrasonography (25.2%), and other indications (9.4%). In 4340 (98.8%) of the fetal samples, microarray analysis was successful; 87.9% of samples could be used without tissue culture. Microarray analysis of the 4282 nonmosaic samples identified all the aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements identified on karyotyping but did not identify balanced translocations and fetal triploidy. In samples with a normal karyotype, microarray analysis revealed clinically relevant deletions or duplications in 6.0% with a structural anomaly and in 1.7% of those whose indications were advanced maternal age or positive screening results. Conclusions In the context of prenatal diagnostic testing, chromosomal microarray analysis identified additional, clinically significant cytogenetic information as compared with karyotyping and was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements but did not identify balanced translocations and triploidies. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01279733.)
Specific features of personal and family history can be used to assess the likelihood of identifying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in individuals tested in a clinical setting.
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a leading inherited cause of infant death with a reported incidence of ∼1 in 10 000 live births and is second to cystic fibrosis as a common, life-shortening autosomal recessive disorder. The American College of Medical Genetics has recommended population carrier screening for SMA, regardless of race or ethnicity, to facilitate informed reproductive options, although other organizations have cited the need for additional large-scale studies before widespread implementation. We report our data from carrier testing (n=72 453) and prenatal diagnosis (n=121) for this condition. Our analysis of large-scale population carrier screening data (n=68 471) demonstrates the technical feasibility of high throughput testing and provides mutation carrier and allele frequencies at a level of accuracy afforded by large data sets. In our United States pan-ethnic population, the calculated a priori carrier frequency of SMA is 1/54 with a detection rate of 91.2%, and the pan-ethnic disease incidence is calculated to be 1/11 000. Carrier frequency and detection rates provided for six major ethnic groups in the United States range from 1/47 and 94.8% in the Caucasian population to 1/72 and 70.5% in the African American population, respectively. This collective experience can be utilized to facilitate accurate pre- and post-test counseling in the settings of carrier screening and prenatal diagnosis for SMA.
Background-Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis.
BACKGROUND:In women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer, the identification of a mutation in breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 has important implications for screening and prevention counseling. Uncertainty regarding the role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high‐risk women from diverse ancestral backgrounds exists because of variability in prevalence estimates of deleterious (disease‐associated) mutations in non‐white populations. In this study, the authors examined the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an ethnically diverse group of women who were referred for genetic testing.METHODS:In this cross‐sectional analysis, the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was assessed in a group of non‐Ashkenazi Jewish women who underwent genetic testing.RESULTS:From 1996 to 2006, 46,276 women who met study criteria underwent DNA full‐sequence analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Deleterious mutations were identified in 12.5% of women, and recurrent deleterious mutations (prevalence >2%) were identified in all ancestral groups. Women of non‐European descent were younger (mean age, 45.9 years; standard deviation [SD], 11.6 years) than European women (mean age, 50 years; SD, 11.9 years; P < .001). Women of African (15.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.3 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.1‐1.5]) and Latin American (14.8%; OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1‐1.4]) ancestries had a significantly higher prevalence of deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations compared with women of Western European ancestry (12.1%), primarily because of an increased prevalence of BRCA1 mutations in those 2 groups. Non‐European ethnicity was associated strongly with having a variant of uncertain significance; however, reclassification decreased variant reporting (from 12.8%→5.9%), and women of African ancestry experienced the largest decline (58%).CONCLUSIONS:Mutation prevalence was found to be high among women who were referred for clinical BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing, and the risk was similar across diverse ethnicities. BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing is integral to cancer risk assessment in all high‐risk women. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.