RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnostic performance of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) as a potential first line diagnostic method in first trimester high risk pregnancies. METHOD: In a retrospective study we performed aCGH using a targeted array BAC platform (Constitutional Chip® 4.0, PerkinElmer, Turku Finland, median resolution 600 kB) and the Affymetrix Cytogenetics® Whole Genome 2.7 M array (at a resolution of 400kB) on 100 anonymized prenatal samples from first trimester high risk pregnancies with normal conventional karyotype. We studied the technical feasibility and turn-around-time as well as the detection rate of pathogenic submicroscopic chromosome anomalies and CNVs of unknown significance. RESULTS: We obtained results in 98 of 100 samples in 3 to a maximum of 5 days after DNA extraction. At the given resolution we did not identify any additional pathogenic CNVs but two CNVs of unknown significance in the chromosomal regions 1q21.1q21.2 (deletion) and 5p15.33 (duplication) (2%). CONCLUSION: In accordance with a growing number of reports this study supports the concept that aCGH at a resolution of 400-600kB may be used as a first line prenatal diagnostic test with high diagnostic safety and rapid turn-around time in high-risk first trimester pregnancies. Detection rate of CNVs of unknown significance, considered as a major hindrance for replacing conventional karyotyping by aCGH, is 2%, but the diagnosis of additional submicroscopic anomalies in this heterogeneous group of patients seems to be rare.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnostic performance of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in the presence of mosaicism in the fetoplacental unit using direct chorionic villi. METHOD: In an ongoing study on the diagnostic performance of aCGH in 80 high-risk pregnancies, we studied three cases of placental mosaicism by carrying out aCGH on DNA of direct chorionic villi and chorionic villi cultures. RESULTS: Case 1: A three- to fourfold dosage gain of the region 18p in aCGH on direct villi was due to two additional isochromosomes 18p confined to the cytotrophoblast. Case 2: aCGH on direct villi revealed a normal result, whereas trisomy 18 mosaicism was present in cultured cells. Case 3: aCGH identifies monosomy X and mosaic disomy of the region Xp11.21-Xq12, whereas this mosaic cell line is not present in the conventional chromosome preparation on the cytotrophoblast. CONCLUSION: Although interpretation of aCGH results may be straightforward in the majority of cases, placental mosaicism may cause misinterpretations of rapid aCGH results on direct chorionic villi due to discrepant chromosomal constitutions of cytotrophoblast and mesenchymal villus core. Further investigations including cultures, fluorescence in situ hybridization and possible amniocentesis will still be required for interpretation of results.
