2169次侵入性检查的产前核型结果。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Hanna Moczulska, Marta Chrzanowska-Steglinska, Beata Skoczylas, Katarzyna Wojda, Maciej Borowiec, Piotr Sieroszewski
{"title":"2169次侵入性检查的产前核型结果。","authors":"Hanna Moczulska,&nbsp;Marta Chrzanowska-Steglinska,&nbsp;Beata Skoczylas,&nbsp;Katarzyna Wojda,&nbsp;Maciej Borowiec,&nbsp;Piotr Sieroszewski","doi":"10.5603/GP.a2022.0143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Foetal karyotyping is a basic tool used to diagnose the most common genetic syndromes. Although new molecular methods such as FISH, MLPA or QF-PCR allow rapid prenatal testing, they are of limited value when diagnosing less frequent chromosomal abnormalities. Chromosomal microarray analysis offers higher test resolution than traditional karyotyping and has been recommended as first-line genetic testing in prenatal diagnosis. The aim of the study was to confirm whether foetal karyotyping remains a valid approach to prenatal diagnosis by analysing its performance in a large population of pregnant women with a high risk of chromosomal aberration.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An analysis was performed of 2169 foetal karyotypes from two referral university centres for prenatal diagnostics in Lodz, Poland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amniocentesis and foetal karyotyping were performed when screening methods had indicated a high risk of chromosomal aberration, or when prenatal ultrasound had proved foetal abnormality. The study group included 205 (9.4%) abnormal foetal karyotypes. Rare aberrations were observed in 34 cases (e.g., translocations, inversions, deletions and duplication). A marker chromosome was present in five cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>One third of the chromosomal abnormalities observed in the prenatal tests were rarer aberrations (i.e., not trisomy 21, 18 or 13). As many of these could not be detected by the new molecular methods, foetal karyotyping remains an important component of prenatal diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":12727,"journal":{"name":"Ginekologia polska","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prenatal karyotype results from 2169 invasive tests.\",\"authors\":\"Hanna Moczulska,&nbsp;Marta Chrzanowska-Steglinska,&nbsp;Beata Skoczylas,&nbsp;Katarzyna Wojda,&nbsp;Maciej Borowiec,&nbsp;Piotr Sieroszewski\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/GP.a2022.0143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Foetal karyotyping is a basic tool used to diagnose the most common genetic syndromes. Although new molecular methods such as FISH, MLPA or QF-PCR allow rapid prenatal testing, they are of limited value when diagnosing less frequent chromosomal abnormalities. Chromosomal microarray analysis offers higher test resolution than traditional karyotyping and has been recommended as first-line genetic testing in prenatal diagnosis. The aim of the study was to confirm whether foetal karyotyping remains a valid approach to prenatal diagnosis by analysing its performance in a large population of pregnant women with a high risk of chromosomal aberration.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An analysis was performed of 2169 foetal karyotypes from two referral university centres for prenatal diagnostics in Lodz, Poland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amniocentesis and foetal karyotyping were performed when screening methods had indicated a high risk of chromosomal aberration, or when prenatal ultrasound had proved foetal abnormality. The study group included 205 (9.4%) abnormal foetal karyotypes. Rare aberrations were observed in 34 cases (e.g., translocations, inversions, deletions and duplication). A marker chromosome was present in five cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>One third of the chromosomal abnormalities observed in the prenatal tests were rarer aberrations (i.e., not trisomy 21, 18 or 13). As many of these could not be detected by the new molecular methods, foetal karyotyping remains an important component of prenatal diagnosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ginekologia polska\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ginekologia polska\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2022.0143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ginekologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2022.0143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:胎儿核型是诊断最常见遗传综合征的基本工具。虽然新的分子方法,如FISH, MLPA或QF-PCR允许快速产前检测,但它们在诊断不太常见的染色体异常时价值有限。染色体微阵列分析比传统的核型分析具有更高的检测分辨率,已被推荐作为产前诊断的一线基因检测。该研究的目的是确认胎儿核型是否仍然是一种有效的产前诊断方法,通过分析其在大量染色体畸变高风险孕妇中的表现。材料和方法:对波兰罗兹两所产前诊断转诊大学中心的2169例胎儿核型进行了分析。结果:当筛查方法提示染色体畸变高危或产前超声证实胎儿异常时,应进行羊膜穿刺术和胎儿核型分析。研究组有205例(9.4%)胎儿核型异常。34例观察到罕见的畸变(如易位、倒位、缺失和重复)。有5例存在标记染色体。结论:在产前检查中观察到的染色体异常中有三分之一是罕见的畸变(即不是21、18或13三体)。由于其中许多无法通过新的分子方法检测到,胎儿核型仍然是产前诊断的重要组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prenatal karyotype results from 2169 invasive tests.

Objectives: Foetal karyotyping is a basic tool used to diagnose the most common genetic syndromes. Although new molecular methods such as FISH, MLPA or QF-PCR allow rapid prenatal testing, they are of limited value when diagnosing less frequent chromosomal abnormalities. Chromosomal microarray analysis offers higher test resolution than traditional karyotyping and has been recommended as first-line genetic testing in prenatal diagnosis. The aim of the study was to confirm whether foetal karyotyping remains a valid approach to prenatal diagnosis by analysing its performance in a large population of pregnant women with a high risk of chromosomal aberration.

Material and methods: An analysis was performed of 2169 foetal karyotypes from two referral university centres for prenatal diagnostics in Lodz, Poland.

Results: Amniocentesis and foetal karyotyping were performed when screening methods had indicated a high risk of chromosomal aberration, or when prenatal ultrasound had proved foetal abnormality. The study group included 205 (9.4%) abnormal foetal karyotypes. Rare aberrations were observed in 34 cases (e.g., translocations, inversions, deletions and duplication). A marker chromosome was present in five cases.

Conclusions: One third of the chromosomal abnormalities observed in the prenatal tests were rarer aberrations (i.e., not trisomy 21, 18 or 13). As many of these could not be detected by the new molecular methods, foetal karyotyping remains an important component of prenatal diagnosis.

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
Ginekologia polska
Ginekologia polska OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Ginekologia Polska’ is a monthly medical journal published in Polish and English language. ‘Ginekologia Polska’ will accept submissions relating to any aspect of gynaecology, obstetrics and areas directly related. ‘Ginekologia Polska’ publishes original contributions, comparative works, case studies, letters to the editor and many other categories of articles.
×
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