Dual testing with QF-PCR and karyotype analysis for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. Evaluation of 13,500 cases with consideration of using QF-PCR as a stand-alone test according to referral indications.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the results obtained from Quantitative Fluorescent (QF)-PCR and conventional karyotype analysis to determine the advantages and disadvantages of dual testing in prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: From 1 June 2006 to 1 June 2010, dual testing by QF-PCR and karyotype analysis was performed in 13,500 prenatal samples. The rates of concordant results between the two methods were evaluated and the rates of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities undetected by QF-PCR were assessed. RESULTS: Abnormal karyotype was found in 320 out of 13,500 cases (2.37%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.63%). From these, QF-PCR did not detect the abnormality in 70 cases (0.52%, 95% CI 0.4-0.64%), whereas 34 had a high/unknown risk of adverse outcome (0.25%, 95% CI 0.17-0.33%). By selectively applying dual testing only at cases with ultrasound findings and/or genetic history, 13 cases of high/unknown risk would have been missed (0.1%, 95% CI 0.05-0.15%). CONCLUSION: Selective dual testing is expected to achieve a serious beneficial economical outcome and reduce parental anxiety produced by ambiguous cytogenetic findings. However, the percentage of 0.1% undetected clinically significant abnormalities cannot be ignored. A suggestion would include the offering of a choice to the pregnant women, undergoing prenatal screening, by informing them about different approaches and various complications.

Prenatal diagnosis of two de novo 4q35-qter deletions characterized by array-CGH.

BACKGROUND: The 4q- syndrome is a well known genetic condition caused by a partial terminal or interstitial deletion in the long arm of chromosome 4. The great variability in the extent of these deletions and the possible contribution of additional genetic rearrangements, such as unbalanced translocations, lead to a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. The majority of reports of 4q- cases are associated with large deletions identified by conventional chromosome analysis; however, the widespread clinical use of novel molecular techniques such as array comparative genomic hybridization (a-CGH) has increased the detection rate of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations associated with 4q- phenotype. RESULTS: Herein we report two prenatal cases of 4qter deletions which presented the first with no sonographic findings and the second with brain ventriculomegaly combined with oligohydramnios. Standard karyotyping demonstrated a deletion at band q35.1 of chromosome 4 in both cases. The application of a-CGH confirmed the diagnosis and offered a precise characterization of the genetic defect. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a review of the currently available literature on the prenatal diagnostic approach of 4q- syndrome and we compare our results with other published cases. Our data suggest that the identification and the precise molecular characterization of new cases with 4q- syndrome will contribute in elucidating the genetic spectrum of this disorder.