Prenatal diagnosis of microdeletional and microduplication syndromes in the Moscow region over 9 years

Zayaeva E.E.; Andreeva E.N.; Demikova N.S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20222204187

Zayaeva E.E.

Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education;
Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Andreeva E.N.

Endocrinology Research Centre;
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

ORCID: 0000-0003-4979-7420

Demikova N.S.

Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education;
Y.E. Veltishchev Clinical Research Institute of Pediatrics in N.I. Pirogov Russian National Medical Research University

Prenatal diagnosis of microdeletional and microduplication syndromes in the Moscow region over 9 years

Authors:

Zayaeva E.E., Andreeva E.N., Demikova N.S.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2022;22(4): 87‑95

DOI: 10.17116/rosakush20222204187

Read: 2129 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Zayaeva EE, Andreeva EN, Demikova NS. Prenatal diagnosis of microdeletional and microduplication syndromes in the Moscow region over 9 years. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2022;22(4):87‑95. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20222204187

Подписка 2026 Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога (Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To study the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of microdeletional and microduplication syndromes in the Moscow Region to optimize the list of diagnostic methods used in the prenatal period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study describes 36 clinical observations of microdeletional and microduplication syndromes among fetuses registered in the regional register of congenital malformations of the Moscow Region from 2011 to 2019 years.

RESULTS

Chromosomal micro-matrix analysis makes it possible to detect sub-microscopic chromosomal rearrangements that are not visible by standard karyotyping. This test has been used in the Moscow region since 2011. In the analyzed period, the number of microdeletions detected (n=26; 72.2%) prevailed over the number of microduplications (n=10; 27.8%) in the Moscow region. The ultrasound examination of fetuses with these alterations showed cardiovascular malformations (50%), central nervous system malformations (12%) and limb malformations (12%). The proportion of multiple malformations was 30.6%. Analysis of the combined screening data in the first trimester showed no deviations of the medians from the reference values.

CONCLUSION

Chromosomal micro matrix analysis is a test that allows the cause of fetal changes be detected at the ultrasound examination and also accurately determine the prognosis of the fetus’s life and health. The test is currently commercial and not all families can afford it. It is therefore worth considering the possibility of allocating budgetary quotas for prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis if indicated, given the great clinical relevance of this examination.

Keywords:

prenatal diagnosis

congenital malformations

chromosomal micro matrix analysis

chromosomal abnormalities

Authors:

Zayaeva E.E.

Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education;
Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Andreeva E.N.

Endocrinology Research Centre;
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

ORCID: 0000-0003-4979-7420

Demikova N.S.

Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education;
Y.E. Veltishchev Clinical Research Institute of Pediatrics in N.I. Pirogov Russian National Medical Research University

Received:

02.04.2022

Accepted:

28.04.2022

Close metadata

References:

Srebniak MI, Diderich KE, Joosten M, Govaerts LC, Knijnenburg J, de Vries FA, Boter M, Lont D, Knapen MF, de Wit MC, Go AT, Galjaard RJ, Van Opstal D. Prenatal SNP array testing in 1000 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: causative, unexpected and susceptibility CNVs. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:5:645-651. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.193
Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, Parikh S, Friedman N, Goldstein A, Filipink RA, McConnell JS, Angle B, Meschino WS, Nezarati MM, Asamoah A, Jackson KE, Gowans GC, Martin JA, Carmany EP, Stockton DW, Schnur RE, Penney LS, Martin DM, Raskin S, Leppig K, Thiese H, Smith R, Aberg E, Niyazov DM, Escobar LF, El-Khechen D, Johnson KD, Lebel RR, Siefkas K, Ball S, Shur N, McGuire M, Brasington CK, Spence JE, Martin LS, Clericuzio C, Ballif BC, Shaffer LG, Eichler EE. Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:14:1321-1331. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1200395
Krstić N, Običan SG. Current landscape of prenatal genetic screening and testing. Birth Defects Res. 2020;112:4:321-331. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1598
Ghi T, Sotiriadis A, Calda P, Da Silva Costa F, Raine-Fenning N, Alfirevic Z, McGillivray G; International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG). ISUOG Practice Guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:2:256-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15945
Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, Savage M, Platt LD, Saltzman D, Grobman WA, Klugman S, Scholl T, Simpson JL, McCall K, Aggarwal VS, Bunke B, Nahum O, Patel A, Lamb AN, Thom EA, Beaudet AL, Ledbetter DH, Shaffer LG, Jackson L. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:23:2175-2184. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203382
Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, Togneri FS, James N, Maher EJ, Meller CH, Williams D, Wapner RJ, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:6:610-620. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12464
de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LC, Van Opstal D, Galjaard RJ, Go AT. Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:2:139-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12575
Levy B, Wapner R. Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:2:201-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.005
Bregand-White J, Saller DN, Clemens M, Surti U, Yatsenko SA, Rajkovic A. Genotype-phenotype correlation and pregnancy outcomes of partial trisomy 14q: A systematic review. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170:9:2365-2371. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.37793
Xiao G, Qiu X, Zhou Y, Tan G, Shen Y. Prenatal diagnosis of a 4.5-Mb deletion at chromosome 4q35.1q35.2: Case report and literature review. Mol Cytogenet. 2021;14:1:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-021-00573-y
Zhang Z, Hu T, Wang J, Hu R, Li Q, Xiao L, Liao N, Liu Z, Wang H, Liu S. Pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with congenital heart disease after a prenatal diagnosis with chromosome microarray Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:1:79-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6078
Vestergaard EM, Christensen R, Petersen OB, Vogel I. Prenatal diagnosis: array comparative genomic hybridization in fetuses with abnormal sonographic findings. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:7:762-768. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12146
Mastromoro G, Guadagnolo D, Khaleghi Hashemian N, Marchionni E, Traversa A, Pizzuti A. Molecular approaches in fetal Malformations, dynamic anomalies and soft markers: diagnostic rates and challenges-systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:3:575. Published 2022 Feb 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030575
Bornstein E, Berger S, Cheung SW, Maliszewski KT, Patel A, Pursley AN, Lenchner E, Bacino C, Beaudet AL, Divon MY. Universal prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis: additive value and clinical dilemmas in fetuses with a normal karyotype. Am J Perinatol. 2017;34:4:340-348. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1586501
Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:12:1119-1123. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4209
Committee on Genetics and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Committee opinion No.682: microarrays and next-ceneration sequencing technology: the use of advanced genetic diagnostic tools in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):262-268. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001817
Donnelly JC, Platt LD, Rebarber A, Zachary J, Grobman WA, Wapner RJ. Association of copy number variants with specific ultrasonographically detected fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000336
Mustafa HJ, Jacobs KM, Tessier KM, Narasimhan SL, Tofte AN, McCarter AR, Cross SN. Chromosomal microarray analysis in the investigation of prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020;2:1:100078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.100078
Tramontana A, Hartmann B, Hafner E. DiGeorge syndrome chromosome region deletion and duplication: Prenatal genotype-phenotype variability in fetal ultrasound and MRI. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39:13:1225-1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5572
Patterson J, Wellesley D, Morgan S, Cilliers D, Allen S, Gardiner CA; Fetal Genomics Steering Group; UK Clinical Genetics Lead Clinician Group; UK Heads of Genetics Laboratory Group. Prenatal chromosome microarray: ‘The UK experience’. A survey of reporting practices in UK genetic services (2012—2019). Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:6:661-667. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5944
Sparks TN, Caughey AB. How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing? Semin Perinatol. 2018;42:5:275-282. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2018.07.003