Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers

References

• Neufeld-Kaiser WA, Cheng EY, Liu YJ. Positive predictive value of noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal chromosome disorders using cell-free DNA in maternal serum: independent clinical experience of a tertiary referral center. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):129. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0374-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ginsberg Y, Khatib N, Weiner Z, et al. The recurrence of sonographic ‘soft markers’: ominous sign or ‘just’ genetics? Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(5):469–472. doi:10.1002/pd.5034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai M, Lin N, Chen X, et al. Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14(1):19. doi:10.1186/s12920-021-00870-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 162 summary: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):976–978. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001438
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borth H, Teubert A, Glaubitz R, et al. Analysis of cell-free DNA in a consecutive series of 13,607 routine cases for the detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies in a single center in Germany. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303(6):1407–1414. doi:10.1007/s00404-020-05856-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Verde M, De Falco L, Torella A, et al. Performance of cell-free DNA sequencing-based non-invasive prenatal testing: experience on 36,456 singleton and multiple pregnancies. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14(1):93. doi:10.1186/s12920-021-00941-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li SL, Zhu J. Prenatal Ultrasound Diagnosis of Fetal Malformation. Beijing: People’s Military Medical Publishing House; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Mazloom AR, Džakula Ž, Oeth P, et al. Noninvasive prenatal detection of sex chromosomal aneuploidies by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from maternal plasma. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):591–597. doi:10.1002/pd.4127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, et al.; Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. American college of medical genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med. 2011;13(7):680–685. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182217a3a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(10):2045–2057. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00200-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, et al. Women’s experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med. 2013;15(2):139–145. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Chen L, Zhou C, et al. Identification of copy number variations among fetuses with ultrasound soft markers using next-generation sequencing. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):8134. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26555-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maya I, Yacobson S, Kahana S, et al. Cut-off value of nuchal translucency as indication for chromosomal microarray analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(3):332–335. doi:10.1002/uog.17421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagi-Dain L, Cohen Vig L, Kahana S, et al. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies. Genet Med. 2019;21(11):2462–2467. doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0550-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armour CM, Dougan SD, Brock JA, et al; On-behalf-of the canadian college of medical geneticists. Practice guideline: joint CCMG-SOGC recommendations for the use of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis and assessment of fetal loss in Canada. J Med Genet. 2018;55(4):215–221. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-105013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunnell ME, Adams S, Pelletier A, et al. Increased use of diagnostic testing after increased nuchal translucency: the influence of non-invasive prenatal testing and chromosomal microarray. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(13):1606–1611. doi:10.1002/pd.6255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su L, Huang H, An G, et al. Clinical application of chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and normal karyotype. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019;7(8):e811. doi:10.1002/mgg3.811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Jing X, Xing L, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening based on second-trimester ultrasonographic soft markers in low-risk pregnant women. Front Genet. 2021;12:793894. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.793894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromley B, Lieberman E, Laboda L, et al. Echogenic intracardiac focus: a sonographic sign for fetal Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(6):998–1001. doi:10.1016/0029-7844(95)00323-J
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Chen L, Wang L, et al. Segmental aneuploidies in fetuses with isolated echogenic intracardiac focus among women younger than 35 years. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):10496. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-67501-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabhu M, Kuller JA, Biggio JR; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Society for maternal-fetal medicine consult series #57: evaluation and management of isolated soft ultrasound markers for aneuploidy in the second trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(4):B2–B15. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.079
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Han X, Ye M, et al. Should chromosomal microarray be offered to fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers in second trimester: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40(12):1569–1577. doi:10.1002/pd.5815
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, et al. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(3):302–314. doi:10.1002/uog.17484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schendel RV, van ECG, Pajkrt E, et al. Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):670. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2618-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rose NC, Kaimal AJ, Dugoff L. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG Practice bulletin summary, number 226. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(4):859–867. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy GP, Hargrave J, Dunn R, et al. Secondary non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomy: an effectiveness study in a public health setting. BJOG. 2021;128(2):440–446. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16464
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abel DE, Alagh A. Benefits and limitations of noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy screening. JAAPA. 2020;33(4):49–53. doi:10.1097/01.JAA.0000654208.03441.23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zheng Y, Wan S, Dang Y, et al. Clinical experience regarding the accuracy of NIPT in the detection of sex chromosome abnormality. J Gene Med. 2020;22(8):e3199. doi:10.1002/jgm.3199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng C, Zhu Q, Liu S, et al. Clinical application of noninvasive prenatal screening for sex chromosome aneuploidies in 50,301 pregnancies: initial experience in a Chinese hospital. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):7767. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44018-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang J, Chen M, Shen W, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals working in prenatal diagnosis toward expanded non-invasive prenatal testing in China. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(1):3–14. doi:10.1002/pd.6075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Y, Liu W, He G, et al. Clinical utility of expanded NIPT for chromosomal abnormalities and etiology analysis of cytogenetic discrepancies cases. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(1):267–279. doi:10.1007/s10815-021-02351-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Practice Bulletin No. 163 summary: screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):979–981. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugoff L, Norton ME, Kuller JA, et al.; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):B2–9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.07.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu X, An G, Xie X, et al. Chromosomal microarray analysis for pregnancies with or without ultrasound abnormalities in women of advanced maternal age. J Clin Lab Anal. 2020;34(4):e23117. doi:10.1002/jcla.23117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Joosten M, Knapen MFCM, et al. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(4):445–452. doi:10.1002/uog.17533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu ZM, Li LL, Zhang H, et al. Clinical application of chromosomal microarray analysis in pregnant women with advanced maternal age and fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers. Med Sci Monit. 2021;27:e929074. doi:10.12659/MSM.929074
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan X, Huang H, Lin X, et al. Performance of chromosomal microarray analysis for detection of copy number variations in fetal echogenic bowel. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:1431–1438. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S299806
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durham L, Papanna R, Stevens B, et al. The utilization of prenatal microarray: a survey of current genetic counseling practices and barriers. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39(5):351–360. doi:10.1002/pd.5435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rj W, Cl M, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175–2184. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1203382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar