Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound

ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study is to understand the diagnostic utility of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)‐based microarrays for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 2858 pregnancies with abnormal ultrasounds and normal kary...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Prenatal diagnosis 2012-10, Vol.32 (10), p.986-995
Hauptverfasser: Shaffer, Lisa G., Rosenfeld, Jill A., Dabell, Mindy P., Coppinger, Justine, Bandholz, Anne M., Ellison, Jay W., Ravnan, J. Britt, Torchia, Beth S., Ballif, Blake C., Fisher, Allan J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 995
container_issue 10
container_start_page 986
container_title Prenatal diagnosis
container_volume 32
creator Shaffer, Lisa G.
Rosenfeld, Jill A.
Dabell, Mindy P.
Coppinger, Justine
Bandholz, Anne M.
Ellison, Jay W.
Ravnan, J. Britt
Torchia, Beth S.
Ballif, Blake C.
Fisher, Allan J.
description ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study is to understand the diagnostic utility of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)‐based microarrays for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. Methods We 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. Results Clinically 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%). Conclusions Microarray 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/pd.3943
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3509216</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1082236630</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5093-a714b2abd6e8703e2d15a799e7a0b95718f92f2c5992923b127f94225686a2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU-P0zAQxS0EYsuC-AbIN5BWWfynieMLEtpdClK1sFIljtYkmRSDYxc7AXLlk-PSUsGBk-3xb94bzSPkKWeXnDHxctddSr2U98iCM60KJoS8TxaM57usS35GHqX0OYO10OohOROiXiql6gX5eY0jtqMNnkYYMdHQ09ZZb1twbqbJbr3t88OPdIs-DLal4EbMbG5JtJlpLsUAMcJMwYObk020D5GmHbb71lwNAzibtbvfXtjt2yY3Rkhh8t1j8qAHl_DJ8Twnmzc3m6u3xfr96t3V63XRlkzLAhRfNgKarsJaMYmi4yUorVEBa3SpeN1r0Yu21FpoIRsuVK-XQpRVXYEAeU5eHWR3UzNg16LPAzizi3aAOJsA1vz74-0nsw3fjMz2gldZ4MVRIIavE6bRDDa16Bx4DFMynNV57VUlWUafH9C8mpQi9icbzsw-MLPrzD6wTD77e6oT9yehDFwcgO_W4fw_HfPh-ihXHGibRvxxoiF-MZWSqjQfb1dmtdbqrrq7NRv5Cw-1sP4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1082236630</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Shaffer, Lisa G. ; Rosenfeld, Jill A. ; Dabell, Mindy P. ; Coppinger, Justine ; Bandholz, Anne M. ; Ellison, Jay W. ; Ravnan, J. Britt ; Torchia, Beth S. ; Ballif, Blake C. ; Fisher, Allan J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Lisa G. ; Rosenfeld, Jill A. ; Dabell, Mindy P. ; Coppinger, Justine ; Bandholz, Anne M. ; Ellison, Jay W. ; Ravnan, J. Britt ; Torchia, Beth S. ; Ballif, Blake C. ; Fisher, Allan J.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study is to understand the diagnostic utility of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)‐based microarrays for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. Methods We 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. Results Clinically 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%). Conclusions Microarray 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 &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0197-3851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0223</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/pd.3943</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22847778</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>abnormal ultrasound ; Adult ; Array CGH &lt; PRENATAL CYTOGENETICS ; Bone and Bones - abnormalities ; Brain - abnormalities ; Chromosome Aberrations ; Comparative Genomic Hybridization ; Congenital Abnormalities - diagnostic imaging ; Congenital Abnormalities - genetics ; congenital anomalies ; Female ; Heart Defects, Congenital - diagnostic imaging ; Heart Defects, Congenital - genetics ; Holoprosencephaly - diagnostic imaging ; Holoprosencephaly - genetics ; Humans ; Karyotyping ; microarray ; Microarray Analysis - methods ; Mutation - genetics ; Original ; Pregnancy ; prenatal ; Prenatal Diagnosis - methods ; Retrospective Studies ; soft markers ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><ispartof>Prenatal diagnosis, 2012-10, Vol.32 (10), p.986-995</ispartof><rights>2012 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2012 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5093-a714b2abd6e8703e2d15a799e7a0b95718f92f2c5992923b127f94225686a2a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5093-a714b2abd6e8703e2d15a799e7a0b95718f92f2c5992923b127f94225686a2a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fpd.3943$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fpd.3943$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22847778$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Lisa G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenfeld, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dabell, Mindy P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coppinger, Justine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bandholz, Anne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellison, Jay W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravnan, J. Britt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torchia, Beth S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ballif, Blake C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Allan J.</creatorcontrib><title>Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound</title><title>Prenatal diagnosis</title><addtitle>Prenat Diagn</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study is to understand the diagnostic utility of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)‐based microarrays for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. Methods We 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. Results Clinically 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%). Conclusions Microarray 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 &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>abnormal ultrasound</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Array CGH &lt; PRENATAL CYTOGENETICS</subject><subject>Bone and Bones - abnormalities</subject><subject>Brain - abnormalities</subject><subject>Chromosome Aberrations</subject><subject>Comparative Genomic Hybridization</subject><subject>Congenital Abnormalities - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Congenital Abnormalities - genetics</subject><subject>congenital anomalies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart Defects, Congenital - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Heart Defects, Congenital - genetics</subject><subject>Holoprosencephaly - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Holoprosencephaly - genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Karyotyping</subject><subject>microarray</subject><subject>Microarray Analysis - methods</subject><subject>Mutation - genetics</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>prenatal</subject><subject>Prenatal Diagnosis - methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>soft markers</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><issn>0197-3851</issn><issn>1097-0223</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU-P0zAQxS0EYsuC-AbIN5BWWfynieMLEtpdClK1sFIljtYkmRSDYxc7AXLlk-PSUsGBk-3xb94bzSPkKWeXnDHxctddSr2U98iCM60KJoS8TxaM57usS35GHqX0OYO10OohOROiXiql6gX5eY0jtqMNnkYYMdHQ09ZZb1twbqbJbr3t88OPdIs-DLal4EbMbG5JtJlpLsUAMcJMwYObk020D5GmHbb71lwNAzibtbvfXtjt2yY3Rkhh8t1j8qAHl_DJ8Twnmzc3m6u3xfr96t3V63XRlkzLAhRfNgKarsJaMYmi4yUorVEBa3SpeN1r0Yu21FpoIRsuVK-XQpRVXYEAeU5eHWR3UzNg16LPAzizi3aAOJsA1vz74-0nsw3fjMz2gldZ4MVRIIavE6bRDDa16Bx4DFMynNV57VUlWUafH9C8mpQi9icbzsw-MLPrzD6wTD77e6oT9yehDFwcgO_W4fw_HfPh-ihXHGibRvxxoiF-MZWSqjQfb1dmtdbqrrq7NRv5Cw-1sP4</recordid><startdate>201210</startdate><enddate>201210</enddate><creator>Shaffer, Lisa G.</creator><creator>Rosenfeld, Jill A.</creator><creator>Dabell, Mindy P.</creator><creator>Coppinger, Justine</creator><creator>Bandholz, Anne M.</creator><creator>Ellison, Jay W.</creator><creator>Ravnan, J. Britt</creator><creator>Torchia, Beth S.</creator><creator>Ballif, Blake C.</creator><creator>Fisher, Allan J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201210</creationdate><title>Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound</title><author>Shaffer, Lisa G. ; Rosenfeld, Jill A. ; Dabell, Mindy P. ; Coppinger, Justine ; Bandholz, Anne M. ; Ellison, Jay W. ; Ravnan, J. Britt ; Torchia, Beth S. ; Ballif, Blake C. ; Fisher, Allan J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5093-a714b2abd6e8703e2d15a799e7a0b95718f92f2c5992923b127f94225686a2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>abnormal ultrasound</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Array CGH &lt; PRENATAL CYTOGENETICS</topic><topic>Bone and Bones - abnormalities</topic><topic>Brain - abnormalities</topic><topic>Chromosome Aberrations</topic><topic>Comparative Genomic Hybridization</topic><topic>Congenital Abnormalities - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Congenital Abnormalities - genetics</topic><topic>congenital anomalies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart Defects, Congenital - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Heart Defects, Congenital - genetics</topic><topic>Holoprosencephaly - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Holoprosencephaly - genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Karyotyping</topic><topic>microarray</topic><topic>Microarray Analysis - methods</topic><topic>Mutation - genetics</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>prenatal</topic><topic>Prenatal Diagnosis - methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>soft markers</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Lisa G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenfeld, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dabell, Mindy P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coppinger, Justine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bandholz, Anne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellison, Jay W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravnan, J. Britt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torchia, Beth S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ballif, Blake C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Allan J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Prenatal diagnosis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shaffer, Lisa G.</au><au>Rosenfeld, Jill A.</au><au>Dabell, Mindy P.</au><au>Coppinger, Justine</au><au>Bandholz, Anne M.</au><au>Ellison, Jay W.</au><au>Ravnan, J. Britt</au><au>Torchia, Beth S.</au><au>Ballif, Blake C.</au><au>Fisher, Allan J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound</atitle><jtitle>Prenatal diagnosis</jtitle><addtitle>Prenat Diagn</addtitle><date>2012-10</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>986</spage><epage>995</epage><pages>986-995</pages><issn>0197-3851</issn><eissn>1097-0223</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study is to understand the diagnostic utility of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)‐based microarrays for pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. Methods We 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. Results Clinically 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%). Conclusions Microarray 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 &amp; Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22847778</pmid><doi>10.1002/pd.3943</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0197-3851
ispartof Prenatal diagnosis, 2012-10, Vol.32 (10), p.986-995
issn 0197-3851
1097-0223
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3509216
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects abnormal ultrasound
Adult
Array CGH < PRENATAL CYTOGENETICS
Bone and Bones - abnormalities
Brain - abnormalities
Chromosome Aberrations
Comparative Genomic Hybridization
Congenital Abnormalities - diagnostic imaging
Congenital Abnormalities - genetics
congenital anomalies
Female
Heart Defects, Congenital - diagnostic imaging
Heart Defects, Congenital - genetics
Holoprosencephaly - diagnostic imaging
Holoprosencephaly - genetics
Humans
Karyotyping
microarray
Microarray Analysis - methods
Mutation - genetics
Original
Pregnancy
prenatal
Prenatal Diagnosis - methods
Retrospective Studies
soft markers
Ultrasonography, Prenatal
title Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T08%3A23%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Detection%20rates%20of%20clinically%20significant%20genomic%20alterations%20by%20microarray%20analysis%20for%20specific%20anomalies%20detected%20by%20ultrasound&rft.jtitle=Prenatal%20diagnosis&rft.au=Shaffer,%20Lisa%20G.&rft.date=2012-10&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=986&rft.epage=995&rft.pages=986-995&rft.issn=0197-3851&rft.eissn=1097-0223&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/pd.3943&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1082236630%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1082236630&rft_id=info:pmid/22847778&rfr_iscdi=true