Comparison of chromosomal microarray and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis using 491 amniotic fluid samples

This study was aimed to investigate the performance of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis compared with traditional karyotyping analysis. Both CMA and karyotyping analyses were performed to detect the karyotypes in the amniotic fluid of 491 pregnant women who got prenatal diagnosis at the Center of Prenatal Diagnosis of Shangrao (China) during January 2019 to April 2021. After excluding 2 samples in the CMA analysis and 2 samples in the karyotyping analysis which were failed in detection, the remaining 487 amniotic fluid samples were detected. Both CMA and karyotyping analyses identified 22 cases of aneuploidy chromosome abnormalities, including trisomy 21 (10 cases), trisomy 18 (4 cases), sex chromosome abnormality (5 cases), and other chromosome abnormalities (3 cases). In addition, CMA and karyotyping analyses found 8 cases of fetal chromosomal imbalance. Interestingly, abnormal results were detected by CMA analysis in 10 cases whose results were normal by karyotype analysis. Furthermore, 23 cases of copy number variation (CNVs) with variation of unknown clinical significance (VOUS) were detected by CMA, which accounted for 4.68% (23/491) in all cases. However, CMA was not able to accurately identify some complex karyotypes and mixed chimeras, including 2 cases of chimeras, 4 cases of balanced translocations, 4 cases of pericentric inversions, and 8 cases of other chromosome polymorphisms, indicating karyotyping analysis was superior to detect these chromosome abnormalities compared with CMA analysis. CMA was better in detecting the fracture sites, microduplication and microdeletion with definite pathogenicity, and CNVs with VOUS compared with karyotype analysis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine
Published
2024-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000040822
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.22
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of chromosomal microarray and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis using 491 amniotic fluid samples

X Jiang, Ying Yang
2 citations
Medicine
Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
2.22
article

Comparison of chromosomal microarray and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis using 491 amniotic fluid samples

X Jiang, Ying Yang
article en
2 citations

Abstract

This study was aimed to investigate the performance of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis compared with traditional karyotyping analysis. Both CMA and karyotyping analyses were performed to detect the karyotypes in the amniotic fluid of 491 pregnant women who got prenatal diagnosis at the Center of Prenatal Diagnosis of Shangrao (China) during January 2019 to April 2021. After excluding 2 samples in the CMA analysis and 2 samples in the karyotyping analysis which were failed in detection, the remaining 487 amniotic fluid samples were detected. Both CMA and karyotyping analyses identified 22 cases of aneuploidy chromosome abnormalities, including trisomy 21 (10 cases), trisomy 18 (4 cases), sex chromosome abnormality (5 cases), and other chromosome abnormalities (3 cases). In addition, CMA and karyotyping analyses found 8 cases of fetal chromosomal imbalance. Interestingly, abnormal results were detected by CMA analysis in 10 cases whose results were normal by karyotype analysis. Furthermore, 23 cases of copy number variation (CNVs) with variation of unknown clinical significance (VOUS) were detected by CMA, which accounted for 4.68% (23/491) in all cases. However, CMA was not able to accurately identify some complex karyotypes and mixed chimeras, including 2 cases of chimeras, 4 cases of balanced translocations, 4 cases of pericentric inversions, and 8 cases of other chromosome polymorphisms, indicating karyotyping analysis was superior to detect these chromosome abnormalities compared with CMA analysis. CMA was better in detecting the fracture sites, microduplication and microdeletion with definite pathogenicity, and CNVs with VOUS compared with karyotype analysis.

MedicineVol. 103(49)
Shangrao Normal University (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
2.22
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.