For Physicians. By Physicians.™
For Physicians. By Physicians.™
This study by Sotiriadis et al. (Prenatal Diagnosis, 2017) sought to calculate the proportion of pathogenic results that would be picked up by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) compared to NIPS.
Comparative Retrospective Study
This study included 2,779 fetuses that underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis using aCGH, with indications including large NT, standard 1st and 2nd trimester screening, fetal anomalies, maternal age, personal or family history of genetic issues, patient request or other (e.g. infection). Patients who were referred for screen positive NIPS were excluded. The investigators assumed a simulated NIPS panel comprised of common aneuploidies, trisomies 21, 18, 13, but also sex chromosome aneuploidies including monosomy X, 47, XXX, 47, XYY, and 47, XXY. NIPS would detect 28.0% (95% CI 14.3-47.6) of detectable aCGH pathogenic results for NT between 95th to 99th centile, 14.3% (95% 5.0-34.6) for NT > 99th centile, 34.2% (95% CI 21.1-50.1) for high-risk first-trimester results, 52.4% (95% CI 32.4-71.7) for second-trimester markers and 50.0% (95% CI 26.8-73.2) for advanced maternal age. Overall, the rate of aCGH pathogenic/likely pathogenic results was 5.0% of which 44.0% (95% CI 36.0-52.2) would have been missed by NIPS alone. This paper yet again reinforces the fact that NIPS is a screening test only and, particularly in the age of aCGH, approximately half of pathogenic findings detectable with invasive testing will be missed.
Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas
OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.
This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.
The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.
Jointly provided by
