Evaluation the Application of Karyotype Analysis and  Chromosome Microarray in Prenatal Diagnosis

Huafeng Li; Yongli Li; Yanli Zhang; Jinping Zhu; Yuqiang Huang

doi:10.18502/ijph.v53i4.15560

Huafeng Li Medical Genetics Department, Linyi Women and Children’s Health Care Hospital, Linyi 276000, China
Yongli Li Medical Genetics Department, Linyi Women and Children’s Health Care Hospital, Linyi 276000, China
Yanli Zhang Medical Genetics Department, Linyi Women and Children’s Health Care Hospital, Linyi 276000, China
Jinping Zhu Medical Genetics Department, Linyi Women and Children’s Health Care Hospital, Linyi 276000, China
Yuqiang Huang Medical Genetics Department, Linyi Women and Children’s Health Care Hospital, Linyi 276000, China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v53i4.15560

Keywords: Prenatal diagnosis; Chromosome microarray analysis; Karyotype analysis; Genetic variant

Abstract

Background: We aimed to compare the difference of the chromosomal abnormalities using karyotype analysis and chromosomal microarray (CMA) as well as to evaluate their application in different prenatal diagnosis indications.

Methods: Overall, 3007 pregnant women with prenatal diagnosis indications from Medical Genetics Department of Linyi Women and Children’s Health Care Hospital, who underwent standard G-banded karyotype analysis and CMA, were enrolled from 2018-2022. G-banded karyotype analysis and CMA were undergone simultaneously. All fetuses with genetic variants were enrolled for further analyzing. The frequency and differences of chromosomal abnormalities of the two methods were compared in different prenatal diagnosis indications groups.

Results: CMA improved 4.09% (123/3007) of genetic changes compared karyotype analysis. CMA is on par with karyotyping for detection of aneuploidies and gross unbalanced rearrangements. Serological screening and ultrasound abnormalities were the main indications of prenatal diagnosis. The detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities was highest in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) abnormal group. In the ultrasound abnormality group, the detection rate of genetic variants in nuchal translucency (NT) increased group was higher than other subgroups and there was statistically significant difference in the detection rate of pCNVs. CMA can detect 5.57% (40/718) more genetic abnormalities in ultrasound abnormality group on the normal karyotype. CMA improved 0.67% (20/3007) of genetic changes with clinically significant compared karyotype, brought 3.42% (103/3007) of variants with uncertain significance (VOUS).

Conclusion: CMA identified additional, clinically significant genetic variants on the basis of normal karyotype analysis, brought a proportion of unclear significant variants. All the pregnant women accepted amniocentesis should be informed about their characteristics of karyotype analysis and CMA by genetic counselors.