2020
DOI: 10.1002/pd.5617
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utility of chromosomal microarray for diagnosis in cases of nonimmune hydrops fetalis

Abstract: Purpose Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is recommended in the diagnostic evaluation of cases with fetal structural anomalies when invasive testing is pursued. However, the utility of CMA for nonimmune hydrops fetalis (NIHF) specifically is not well known. Our objective was to describe the overall yield of CMA in the diagnostic evaluation of NIHF, comparing isolated cases to those with concurrent structural anomalies. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of all prenatally diagnosed NIHF cases evaluated at… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
3
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, chromosomal abnormalities, if not the foremost cause, are an important cause accounting for a significant proportion of the diagnoses in most studies. CMA did not offer any benefit in identifying additional chromosomal abnormalities in our cohort, consistent with observations by Sparks et al 44 . However, Deng et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Thus, chromosomal abnormalities, if not the foremost cause, are an important cause accounting for a significant proportion of the diagnoses in most studies. CMA did not offer any benefit in identifying additional chromosomal abnormalities in our cohort, consistent with observations by Sparks et al 44 . However, Deng et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The role of QF-PCR or conventional karyotyping in NIHF should always be respected, given the high incidence of aneuploidy 38 . However, given the limited additional yield of CMA over karyotyping, and considering the ability of WGS to detect both structural variants and aneuploidy, it may be reasonable in the future to consider WGS as the second-line test after QF-PCR 5 . The list of novel causative genes in NIHF is constantly expanding and, over time, the yield of prenatal NGS will likely improve as more genes are discovered and our understanding of the prenatal phenotype develops 2,37 .…”
Section: Mone Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Excluding cases due to infection, fetal structural anomaly (FSA) or complications of twin pregnancy, aneuploidy may explain one-quarter of cases, with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) demonstrating copy-number variants (CNVs) in a further 6-14% of cases 3,4 . Despite this, the definitive diagnostic yield of CMA over standard G-banding karyotyping is moderate and, following exclusion of the aforementioned causes, up to 50% of cases of NIHF remain unexplained, with a significant proportion thought to be secondary to single-gene variants 5 . Over 170 genes have been identified as being associated with NIHF and, until the recent emergence of next-generation sequencing (NGS), testing for such conditions has relied on targeted gene testing and enzyme assays 3,6 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Standard genetic testing with karyotyping or chromosomal microarray analysis identifies the cause of only 25% of NIHF cases and does not detect single-gene disorders. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The contribution of single-gene disorders to NIHF is unknown but is potentially substantial. Some genetic disorders underlying NIHF portend mild long-term outcomes, whereas others are lethal despite treatment.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%