Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2013 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3

Bir genetik laboratuvarına başvuran 13.466 yüksek riskli gebe kadında değerlendirilen prenatal sitogenetik bulgular

Prenatal cytogenetic findings in 13.466 cases of high-risk pregnant women in one laboratory

Pages
139–146
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Analysis of samples of high risk pregnancies could provide an important database for prenatal genetic counseling and obstetric management for each indication groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to evaluate cytogenetic findings of high risk pregnancies according to indications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: Between years 2001 and 2009, a large series of 13466 pregnant women with various high-risk factors were referred to our genetic laboratory for prenatal genetic diagnosis. 12.124 amnio- centesis, 212 chorionic villus sampling (CVS), 173 percutaneous umbilical blood sampling (PUBS) sam- ples and 809 fetal and placental tissue samples (from aborted or from stillbirth fetuses) were collected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Analysis of samples of high risk pregnancies could provide an important database for prenatal genetic counseling and obstetric management for each indication groups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to evaluate cytogenetic findings of high risk pregnancies according to indications. STUDY DESIGN: Between years 2001 and 2009, a large series of 13466 pregnant women with various high-risk factors were referred to our genetic laboratory for prenatal genetic diagnosis. 12.124 amnio- centesis, 212 chorionic villus sampling (CVS), 173 percutaneous umbilical blood sampling (PUBS) sam- ples and 809 fetal and placental tissue samples (from aborted or from stillbirth fetuses) were collected. All of the cytogenetic findings were assessed retrospectively. We compared the cytogenetic results in the distribution of indication groups. RESULTS: Among all indications advanced maternal age was the most common indication. Chromosomal abnormalities were observed in 1029/13406 cases (7.6%). Trisomy 21 was the most com- mon chromosomal abnormality found in 228/1029 cases (22.2%). Of sex chromosomal abnormalities, monosomies were the most common abnormality (3.3%). Of structural rearrangements translocations were the most common abnormality (2.3%). Balanced chromosome rearrangement carriers had the highest percentage of pregnancies with abnormal chromosomes. CONCLUSION: This study presents the largest series of cytogenetic findings on prenatal samples per- formed in Turkey. Analysis of samples of high risk pregnancies could provide an important database for prenatal genetic counseling and obstetric management for each indication groups.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada endikasyonlarına göre yüksek riskli ge- beliklerde gözlenen sitogenetik değişikliklerin değerlendirilme- si amaçlanmıştır. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: 2001 - 2009 yılları arasında genetik la- boratuarımıza yüksek risk faktörleri nedeniyle prenatal tanı amaçlı başvuran 13.466 hamile bireyden oluşan geniş bir seri değerlendirilmiştir. 12.124 amniyosentez, 212 koryon villus, 173 fetal kord kanı örnekleri ve 809 abortus veya stillbirth fe- tuslardan elde edilen fetal veya plasental örnekler değerlendi- rilmeye alınmıştır. Tüm sitogenetik sonuçlar retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sitogenetik sonuçlar endikasyon grupları- nın dağılımına göre karşılaştırılmıştır. BULGULAR: Tüm endikasyonlar arasında en sık gözlenen artmış anne yaşıdır. Kromozomal anomaliler vakaların %7,6' sında gözlenmiştir (1.029/13.406). Kromomozal anomaliler arasında trizomi 21 %22,2'lik yüzdeyle (228/1.029) en sık rast- lanan kromozomal anomalidir. Cinsiyet kromozomlarına ait anomaliler içinde monozomiler en sık rastlanandır (%3,3). Yapısal kromozomal anomaliler içinde translokasyonlar en sık rastlanan anomalidir (%2,3). Dengeli kromozom değişikliklerini taşıyan bireyler anormal kromozom kuruluşu olan gebelikler içinde en yüksek yüzdeye sahiptir. SONUÇ: Bu çalışmada Türkiye'de prenatal örneklere ait sito- genetik bulguların yer aldığı en kapsamlı çalışmadır. Yüksek riskli gebeliklere ait örneklerin incelenmesi prenatal genetik da- nışmanlık ve farklı endikasyon gruplarına göre obstetrik yakla- şım açısından önemli bir veritabanı oluşturacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZER, L., ÜNSAL, E., AYVAZ, Ö., ŞEN, A., BALTACI, V. (2013). Bir genetik laboratuvarına başvuran 13.466 yüksek riskli gebe kadında değerlendirilen prenatal sitogenetik bulgular. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3, 139–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/227755

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Acog Practice Bulletin. Invasive Prenatal Testing for Ane- uploidy. Obstetrics& Gynecology 2007;110(6):1459-67
  2. Anderson CL, Brown CE. Fetal chromosomal abnormal- ities: antenatal screening and diagnosis. Am Fam Physici- an 2009;79:117-23
  3. Bottalico JN et al. Second trimester genetic sonogram for detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities in a com- munity- based antenatal testing unit. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:161-8
  4. Caron L, Tihy F, Dallaire L. Frequencies of Chromosomal Abnormalities at Amniocentesis: Over 20 Years of Cytogenetic Analyses in One Laboratory. Am J Med Ge- net 1999;82:149-54
  5. Ferguson-Smith MA, Yates JR. Maternal age spesific rates for chromosome aberrations and factors influencing them: report of a collaborative European study on 52 965 am- niocenteses. Prenat Diagn 1984;4:5-44
  6. Flood K, Malone FD. Screening for fetal abnormalities with ultrasound. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008;20:139- 145
  7. Forabosco A, Percesepe A, Santucci S. Incidence of non- age-dependent chromosomal abnormalities: a population- based study on 88965 amniocentesis. Eur J Hum Genet 2009;17:897-903
  8. Geerts L. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormali- ties in a resource-poor setting. Int J Gynecol and Obstet 2008;103:16-21 9. Han SH et al. Clinical and Cytogenetic Findings on 31,615 Mid-trimester Amniocentesis. Korean J Lab Med 2008;28:378-85
  9. Hobbins et al. An 8-center study to evaluate the utility of midterm genetic sonograms among high-risk pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:33-38
  10. Jiang J, Fu M, Wang D. Cytogenetic analysis in 61 couples with spontaneous abortions. Chin Med J 2001;114:200-1
  11. Korteweg F et al. Cytogenetic Analysis After Evaluation of 750 Fetal Deaths. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:865-74
  12. Liehr T, Weise A. Frequency of small supernumerary marker chromosomes in prenatal, newborn, developmen- tally retarded and infertility diagnostics. Int J Mol Med 2007;19:719-31
  13. Mademont-soler I et al. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis in Spain: analysis and evaluation of the results obtained from amniotic fluid samples during last decade. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;157:156-60
  14. Milunsky A, Milunsky JM. Prenatal Diagnosis and Fetus Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment. Boston, Wiley- Blackwell 2011;194-260
  15. Miyake H,Nakai A, Shimada T, Takeshita T. Effect of First-Trimester Ultrasound Examination for Chromoso- mal Aberrations in Women Undergoing Amniocentesis. J Nippon Med Sch 2006;73:271-6