Journals / İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 83 - Sayı: 4

CHANGES IN CLINICAL AND CYTOGENETIC FINDINGS OF INVASIVE PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS FROM 1989 TO 2011 IN ISTANBUL; IMPACT OF THE BIOCHEMICAL SCREENING TESTS AND FETAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY

İSTANBUL’DA 1989-2011 YILLARI ARASINDA İNVAZİF PRENATAL TANININ KLİNİK VE SİTOGENETİK BULGULARINDAKİ DEĞİŞİKLİKLER; BİYOKİMYASAL TARAMA TESTLERİNİN VE FETAL ULTRASONOGRAFİNİN ETKİSİ

Pages
315–324
Publication Date
2020-10-19
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)

The presented data will establish a baseline for better genetic counseling regarding IPD and noninvasive PD (NIPD) in different risk groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To determine the impact of maternal serum screening tests (MS-STs) and ultrasonography (US) on clinical and cytogenetic findings in invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) Material and Method: Results of 23469 amniocentesis (AC) and 2492 chorionic villus sampling (CVS) obtained over 23 years were compared with regard to two periods; before and after year 2000.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Cases with advanced maternal age (AMA) decreased, while MS-STs and fetal US increased in the timeline.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The presented data will establish a baseline for better genetic counseling regarding IPD and noninvasive PD (NIPD) in different risk groups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İnvazif prenatal tanı · Maternal serum tarama testleri · fetal ultrasonografi

Abstract

Objective: To determine the impact of maternal serum screening tests (MS-STs) and ultrasonography (US) on clinical and cytogenetic findings in invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) Material and Method: Results of 23469 amniocentesis (AC) and 2492 chorionic villus sampling (CVS) obtained over 23 years were compared with regard to two periods; before and after year 2000. Results: Cases with advanced maternal age (AMA) decreased, while MS-STs and fetal US increased in the timeline. The rate of chromosome aberration increased from 10.1% to 17.6% in CVS and from 3.2% to 4.3% in AC. The common aneuploidies summed up to 69.6% of anomalies (n=385) in CVS and 65.1% of anomalies (n=892) in AC. When known parental carriers were excluded, the rate of chromosomal rearrangements was 1.4% in CVS and 1% in AC. Discrepant cytogenetic results between CVS and AC were observed in 1.7% of CVS. The rate of true/possible true mosaicism, false-positive confined placental mosaicism (CPM) and false-negative CPM was 1.02%, 0.57% and 0.49% in CVS, respectively. Conclusion: MS-ST and US had a serious impact on the indications for invasive procedures and the rates of chromosome aberrations. The presented data will establish a baseline for better genetic counseling regarding IPD and noninvasive PD (NIPD) in different risk groups.

Özet

Amaç: İnvazif prenatal tanıda (IPT) maternal serum tarama testlerinin (MS-TT) ve fetal ultrasonografinin (USG) klinik ve sitogenetik bulgular üzerine olan etkisini belirlemek. Gereç ve Yöntem: 23 yıllık süreçte invazif girişimle elde edilen 23469 amniyosentez (AS) ve 2492 koryon villus aspirasyonu uygulama (KVA) sonuçları, 2000 yılı öncesi ve sonrası iki döneme ayrılarak karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: İleri anne yaşı (İAY) ile başvuran olgu sayısı azalırken, MS-TT ve fetal USG endikasyonu ile başvuran olguların sayısında artma gözlendi. Kromozom anomali oranı KVA’da %10,1’den %17,6’ya ve AS’de %3,2’den %4,3’e yükseldi. Yaygın anöploidiler, KVA’da anomalilerin %69,6’sını (n=385) ve AS’de anomalilerin %65,1’ini (n=892) oluşturdu. Bilinen kromozom anomali taşıyıcıları hariç tutulduğunda, kromozomal yeniden düzenlemelerin oranı KVA’da %1,4 ve AS’de %1 idi. KVA’nun %1,7’sinde KVA ve AS arasında uyumsuz sitogenetik sonuçlar gözlendi. KVA’da gerçek/ olası gerçek mozaiklik, yalancı pozitif plasentayla sınırlı mozaisizm (PSM) ve yalancı negatif PSM oranı sırasıyla %1,02, %0,57 ve %0,49 bulundu.Sonuç: MS-TT ve USG’nin invazif girişim endikasyonları ve saptanan kromozom anomali oranları üzerinde ciddi etkilerinin olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen veriler, farklı risk gruplarında İPT ve noninvazif prenatal tarama ile ilgili daha doğru ve yararlı genetik danışmanlık için bir temel oluşturacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞARAN, S., KARAMAN, B., KIRGIZ, M., KALELİOĞLU, İ. H., HAS, R., DEHGAN, T., YILDIRIM, A., TOKSOY, G., YÜKSEL, A. (2020). CHANGES IN CLINICAL AND CYTOGENETIC FINDINGS OF INVASIVE PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS FROM 1989 TO 2011 IN ISTANBUL; IMPACT OF THE BIOCHEMICAL SCREENING TESTS AND FETAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY. İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 83 - Sayı: 4, 315–324. https://ajindex.com/articles/83601

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Adams MM, Erickson JD, Layde PM, Oakley GP. Down syndrome. Recent trends in the United States. JAMA 1981;246(7):758-760. [CrossRef] 2. Hook EB, Cross PK, Regal RR. The frequency of 47.+21, 47.+18, and 47,+13 at the uppermost extremes of maternal ages: results on 56,094 fetuses studied prenatally and comparisons with data on livebirths. Hum Genet 1984;28(3):211-20. [CrossRef] 3. Ferguson-Smith MA, Yates JRW. Maternal age specific rates for chromosomal aberrations factors influencing them: report of a collaborative European study on 52,965 amniocenteses. Prenat Diagn 1984;4(7):5-44. [CrossRef] 4. Cuckle HS, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. Estimating a woman’s risk of having a pregnancy associated with Down’s syndrome using her age and serum alpha-fetoprotein level. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94(5):387-402. [CrossRef] 5. Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH. Sequential screening. In: Nicolaides KH, editor. Ultrasound markers for fetal chromosomal defects. Carnforth, UK: Parthenon; 1996. 6. Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK. Combining ultrasound and biochemistry in first-trimester screening for Down’s syndrome. Prenat Diagn 1997;17(9):821-9. [CrossRef] 7. Spencer K, Macri JN, Aitken DA, Connor JM. Free beta hCG as first trimester marker for fetal trisomy. Lancet 1992;339(8807):1480. [CrossRef] 8. Nicolaides KH. Nuchal translucency and other first-trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191(1):45-67. [CrossRef] 9. Lo DYM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain P, Rai V, Sargent IL, Redman CWG, Wainscoat JS. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 1997;350(9076):485-7. [CrossRef] 10. Wright CF, Chitty LS. Cell-free fetal DNA and RNA in maternal blood: implications for safer antenatal testing. BMJ 2009;339:b2451. [CrossRef] 11. Benn P, Cuckle H and Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: the paradigm will shift, but slowly. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2012;39(2):127-30. [CrossRef] 12. TUIK. www.turkstat.gov.tr Republic of Turkey Statistical Institute. Number:1325783/2015, Documents number: 7330775/7339623, Chapter 4.1, page 14. 13. Ekelund CK, Jørgensen FS, Petersen OB, et al. Danish Fetal Medicine Research Group. Impact of a new national screening policy for Down’s sy ndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ 2008;337:a2547. [CrossRef] 14. Lichtenbelt KD, Alizadeh BZ, Scheffer PG, et al. Trends in the utilization of invasive prenatal diagnosis in The Netherlands during 2000-2009. Prenat Diagn 2011;31(8):765-72.