Article

Karyotype versus Microarray Testing for Genetic Abnormalities after Stillbirth

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston (G.R.S., R.B.)
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 12/2012; 367(23):2185-2193. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1201569
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background Genetic abnormalities have been associated with 6 to 13% of stillbirths, but the true prevalence may be higher. Unlike karyotype analysis, microarray analysis does not require live cells, and it detects small deletions and duplications called copy-number variants. Methods The Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network conducted a population-based study of stillbirth in five geographic catchment areas. Standardized postmortem examinations and karyotype analyses were performed. A single-nucleotide polymorphism array was used to detect copy-number variants of at least 500 kb in placental or fetal tissue. Variants that were not identified in any of three databases of apparently unaffected persons were then classified into three groups: probably benign, clinical significance unknown, or pathogenic. We compared the results of karyotype and microarray analyses of samples obtained after delivery. Results In our analysis of samples from 532 stillbirths, microarray analysis yielded results more often than did karyotype analysis (87.4% vs. 70.5%, P<0.001) and provided better detection of genetic abnormalities (aneuploidy or pathogenic copy-number variants, 8.3% vs. 5.8%; P=0.007). Microarray analysis also identified more genetic abnormalities among 443 antepartum stillbirths (8.8% vs. 6.5%, P=0.02) and 67 stillbirths with congenital anomalies (29.9% vs. 19.4%, P=0.008). As compared with karyotype analysis, microarray analysis provided a relative increase in the diagnosis of genetic abnormalities of 41.9% in all stillbirths, 34.5% in antepartum stillbirths, and 53.8% in stillbirths with anomalies. Conclusions Microarray analysis is more likely than karyotype analysis to provide a genetic diagnosis, primarily because of its success with nonviable tissue, and is especially valuable in analyses of stillbirths with congenital anomalies or in cases in which karyotype results cannot be obtained. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.).

Full-text

Available from: Ronald Wapner, Dec 27, 2013
1 Follower
 · 
253 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The perinatal autopsy is an important tool in the investigation of fetal and neonatal death, and a complete understanding of its risks and benefits is necessary for providers of perinatal care. This review, from the perspective of a perinatal pathologist, reports the details of the autopsy procedure, its goals, its value to individual patients and the health care system in general, and its alternatives. Even with new emerging technologies, the conventional perinatal autopsy remains the gold standard for determining the cause of death and the final summary of all pathologic findings. Therefore, the information provided in this review can help providers properly convey information about perinatal autopsy to bereaved families. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Seminars in Perinatology 02/2015; 39(1):55-63. DOI:10.1053/j.semperi.2014.10.008 · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the seventies genome wide cytogenetic testing by using karyotyping has been a basic genetic examination. Recently a higher resolution DNA microarray technology was developed. Based on a literature review we give an overview of the current status and the advantages of the use of whole genome array diagnostics for routine prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis. Array testing is now commonly used for cytogenetic prenatal diagnosis in cases of ultrasound anomalies, but is not routinely implemented for all indications due to the absence of an internationally accepted policy how to deal with problematic copy number variants (CNVs) such as variants of unknown clinical significance (VOUS), susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental disorders (SL) and unexpected diagnoses. There is also no consensus about offering patients choices on predefined outcome categories during pre-test counseling. If the patient wishes genome wide testing and is willing to take the risk of an invasive procedure, whole array testing may replace karyotyping if assisted by genetic counseling. In this review we advocate, based on literature and our experience that the advantages of whole genome array as a first-tier diagnostic prenatal test largely overweighs its disadvantages. However, there is still need for a policy on what to report, especially because new challenges, like the feasibility of fetal whole genome screening for both CNV and mutations in maternal plasma, are to be expected coming up in the near future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 12/2014; DOI:10.1002/uog.14745 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A case is presented in which a fetus was delivered by cesarean section for failure to progress and a "nonreassuring heart rate tracing" in which the Apgar scores were unexpectedly 0 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes. Resuscitation was unsuccessful after 30 minutes. The venous cord gas was normal and the arterial blood gas was not consistent with intrapartum asphyxia. At the time of surgery, the placenta appeared grossly normal. The autopsy was entirely normal. This case raises questions about our understanding of intrauterine fetal demise and suggests an approach to future research.
    01/2015; 2015:318350. DOI:10.1155/2015/318350