日本先进医疗A下妊娠产物染色体分析中g带和下一代测序临床应用的比较前瞻性研究。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Reproductive Medicine and Biology Pub Date : 2025-04-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1002/rmb2.12655
Hidemine Honda, Tsuyoshi Takiuchi, Mika Handa, Nao Wakui, Saori Tsuji, Takeshi Goto, Shota Suzuki, Fumie Saji, Tatsuya Miyake, Sakae Goto, Satomi Okamura, Tomomi Yamada, Michiko Kodama, Tadashi Kimura
{"title":"日本先进医疗A下妊娠产物染色体分析中g带和下一代测序临床应用的比较前瞻性研究。","authors":"Hidemine Honda, Tsuyoshi Takiuchi, Mika Handa, Nao Wakui, Saori Tsuji, Takeshi Goto, Shota Suzuki, Fumie Saji, Tatsuya Miyake, Sakae Goto, Satomi Okamura, Tomomi Yamada, Michiko Kodama, Tadashi Kimura","doi":"10.1002/rmb2.12655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for chromosomal analysis of products of conception (POC), a crucial tool for detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities which are major causes of miscarriage and stillbirth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the clinical utility of both techniques in a prospective analysis of 40 patients who experienced miscarriages or stillbirths between 6 and 36 weeks of gestation under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan. Both methods were applied to the same POC samples. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a presumed cause of miscarriage or stillbirth among all submitted samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NGS presumed the cause in 75.0% (30/40) of cases, significantly outperforming G-banding's 42.5% (17/40) (<i>p</i> < 0.01). G-banding could analyze 67.5% (27/40) of the samples owing to culture failure, whereas NGS successfully analyzed all samples (100%, 40/40) (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Among the successfully analyzed samples, NGS presumed the cause in 70.3% (19/27) of cases, compared with 62.9% (17/27) for G-banding (<i>p</i> = 0.31). For miscarriages before 12 weeks, NGS presumed the cause in 73.5% (25/34) of cases, significantly higher than the 44.1% (15/34) (<i>p</i> < 0.01) presumed using G-banding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results highlight the superior efficacy of NGS over G-banding for presuming causes of miscarriage or stillbirth.</p>","PeriodicalId":21116,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Medicine and Biology","volume":"24 1","pages":"e12655"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12044132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative prospective study on the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing for chromosomal analysis of products of conception under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan.\",\"authors\":\"Hidemine Honda, Tsuyoshi Takiuchi, Mika Handa, Nao Wakui, Saori Tsuji, Takeshi Goto, Shota Suzuki, Fumie Saji, Tatsuya Miyake, Sakae Goto, Satomi Okamura, Tomomi Yamada, Michiko Kodama, Tadashi Kimura\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rmb2.12655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for chromosomal analysis of products of conception (POC), a crucial tool for detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities which are major causes of miscarriage and stillbirth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the clinical utility of both techniques in a prospective analysis of 40 patients who experienced miscarriages or stillbirths between 6 and 36 weeks of gestation under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan. Both methods were applied to the same POC samples. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a presumed cause of miscarriage or stillbirth among all submitted samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NGS presumed the cause in 75.0% (30/40) of cases, significantly outperforming G-banding's 42.5% (17/40) (<i>p</i> < 0.01). G-banding could analyze 67.5% (27/40) of the samples owing to culture failure, whereas NGS successfully analyzed all samples (100%, 40/40) (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Among the successfully analyzed samples, NGS presumed the cause in 70.3% (19/27) of cases, compared with 62.9% (17/27) for G-banding (<i>p</i> = 0.31). For miscarriages before 12 weeks, NGS presumed the cause in 73.5% (25/34) of cases, significantly higher than the 44.1% (15/34) (<i>p</i> < 0.01) presumed using G-banding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results highlight the superior efficacy of NGS over G-banding for presuming causes of miscarriage or stillbirth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive Medicine and Biology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"e12655\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12044132/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive Medicine and Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12655\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Medicine and Biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12655","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较g -带和新一代测序(NGS)在妊娠产物(POC)染色体分析中的临床应用,POC是检测胎儿染色体异常的重要工具,是流产和死产的主要原因。方法:我们对40例妊娠6 - 36周流产或死产的患者进行前瞻性分析,评估了这两种技术的临床应用。两种方法均适用于相同的POC样品。主要结果是在所有提交的样本中推定原因为流产或死产的患者比例。结果:NGS推测病因率为75.0%(30/40),显著优于g带的42.5% (17/40)(p p p = 0.31)。对于12周前流产,NGS的推测率为73.5%(25/34),显著高于44.1% (15/34)(p)。结论:NGS在推测流产或死产原因方面优于g带。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative prospective study on the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing for chromosomal analysis of products of conception under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan.

Purpose: To compare the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for chromosomal analysis of products of conception (POC), a crucial tool for detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities which are major causes of miscarriage and stillbirth.

Methods: We evaluated the clinical utility of both techniques in a prospective analysis of 40 patients who experienced miscarriages or stillbirths between 6 and 36 weeks of gestation under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan. Both methods were applied to the same POC samples. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a presumed cause of miscarriage or stillbirth among all submitted samples.

Results: NGS presumed the cause in 75.0% (30/40) of cases, significantly outperforming G-banding's 42.5% (17/40) (p < 0.01). G-banding could analyze 67.5% (27/40) of the samples owing to culture failure, whereas NGS successfully analyzed all samples (100%, 40/40) (p < 0.01). Among the successfully analyzed samples, NGS presumed the cause in 70.3% (19/27) of cases, compared with 62.9% (17/27) for G-banding (p = 0.31). For miscarriages before 12 weeks, NGS presumed the cause in 73.5% (25/34) of cases, significantly higher than the 44.1% (15/34) (p < 0.01) presumed using G-banding.

Conclusions: These results highlight the superior efficacy of NGS over G-banding for presuming causes of miscarriage or stillbirth.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Medicine and Biology (RMB) is the official English journal of the Japan Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Japan Society of Fertilization and Implantation, the Japan Society of Andrology, and publishes original research articles that report new findings or concepts in all aspects of reproductive phenomena in all kinds of mammals. Papers in any of the following fields will be considered: andrology, endocrinology, oncology, immunology, genetics, function of gonads and genital tracts, erectile dysfunction, gametogenesis, function of accessory sex organs, fertilization, embryogenesis, embryo manipulation, pregnancy, implantation, ontogenesis, infectious disease, contraception, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信