DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20213674

Changing indications of prenatal diagnosis in molecular era: experience of single centre in North India

Aradhana Dwivedi, Reema Kumar Bhatt, Kamal Kishore

Abstract


Background: About 3-5% of pregnancies are complicated by chromosomal aberrations and birth defects. In the past prenatal genetic testing is identified to be largely restricted to the detection of chromosomal abnormalities like aneuploidy. With advances in the field of medical genetics, there has been substantial rise in use of prenatal genetic testing and we wanted to find out the same in our cohort of patients.

Methods: Study design was retrospective, single-center observational study. Pregnant patients who underwent invasive testing for prenatal genetic disorder at fetal medicine specialty were considered for inclusion in the study. The invasive procedures that were performed in our study were amniocentesis, chorionic villous sampling (CVS) and cordocentesis.

Results: Total 515 pregnant women underwent prenatal testing. Amniocentesis was the most common procedure to be performed accounting for about 74% of total cases. In our cohort, abnormal aneuploidy screening was the most common indication for performing prenatal diagnosis (64% of cases), while 12.8 % underwent prenatal diagnosis due to abnormalities/genetic disorder in previous child. Abnormalities in antenatal ultrasonography accounted for 16% of cases. Quantitative fluorescene polymerase chain reaction, rapid aneuploidy testing (QFPCR) was performed in all the cases. Karyotype was performed in 273 cases while chromosomal microarray was performed on 92 samples. Multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) was done for 15 patients. Targeted mutation testing (Sanger sequencing) was done on 121 prenatal samples. Exome sequencing was performed on 14 fetuses. Out of 515 a total of 79 fetuses (15.3%) were found to have genetic disorder.  Aneuploidies were identified in 11 fetuses (2.1%), 12 fetuses (2.3%) were found to have pathogenic CNVs (Copy number variants). Single gene disorders were found in 56 fetuses (10.8%). 

Conclusions: We have moved very rapidly from Karyotyping to chromosomal microarray to exome sequencing. There has been rapid change in the indications for prenatal Diagnosis from yesteryears with coming of new era of genetics.


Keywords


Prenatal genetic testing, Rapid aneuploidy testing, Karyotyping, Chromosomal microarray, Sanger sequencing, Exome sequencing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hixson L, Goel S, Schuber P, Faltas V, Lee J, Narayakkadan A, et al. An overview on prenatal screening for chromosomal aberrations. J Lab Autom. 2015;20:562-73.

Larrabee PB, Johnson KL, Pestova E, Lucas M, Wilber K, LeShane ES, et al. Microarray analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in amniotic fluid: a prenatal molecular karyotype. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;75:485-91.

Dugoff L, Norton ME, Kuller JA. The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):B2-9.

Norton ME, Rink BD. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40:56-66.

Verma IC. Burden of genetic disorders in India. Indian J Pediatr. 2000;67(12):893-8.

Verma IC, Bijarnia S. The burden of genetic disorders in India and a framework for community control. Community Genet. 2002;5(3):192-6.

Ghi T, Sotiriadis A, Calda P, Da Silva Costa F, Raine‐Fenning N, Alfirevic Z, et al. International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG). ISUOG Practice Guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016;48:256-68.

Alfirevic Z, Navaratnam K, Mujezinovic F. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;9:CD003252.

Shim SS. Chorionic villus sampling. J Genet Med. 2014;11:43-8.

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 163: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:123-37.

Adinolfi M, Pertl B, Sherlock J. Rapid detection of aneuploidies by microsatellite and the quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction. Prenat Diagn. 1991;17:1299-311.

Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175-84.

Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:747-57.