The Diagnostic Yield of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Third-Trimester Fetal Abnormalities

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) performed in cases of fetal abnormalities detected during the third trimester of pregnancy.

Study Design A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for women who underwent amniocentesis at or beyond 28 weeks of gestation between January 2017 and February 2023. CMA results of pregnancies with abnormal sonographic findings not detected before 28 weeks were included.

Results A total of 482 fetuses met the inclusion criteria. The average maternal age was 31.3 years, and the average gestational age at amniocentesis was 32.3 weeks. The overall diagnostic yield of CMA was 6.2% (30 clinically significant copy number variations [CNVs]). The yield was 16.4% in cases with two or more fetal malformations, while cases with a single anomaly revealed a diagnostic yield of 7.3%. Cases presenting isolated polyhydramnios or isolated fetal growth restriction had a lower yield of 9.3 and 5.4%, respectively. Of the 30 clinically significant cases, 19 (or 63.4%) exhibited recurrent CNVs. The remaining 11 cases (or 36.6%) presented unique CNVs. The theoretical yield of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in our cohort is 2% for aneuploidy, which implies that it could potentially miss up to 70% of the significant findings that could be identified by CMA. In 80% of the fetuses (or 24 out of 30) with clinically significant CNVs, the structural abnormalities detected on fetal ultrasound examinations corresponded with the CMA results.

Conclusion The 6.2% detection rate of significant CNVs in late-onset fetal anomalies confirms the value of CMA in third-trimester amniocentesis. The findings underscore the necessity of CMA for detecting CNVs potentially overlooked by NIPT and emphasize the importance of thorough genetic counseling.

Key Points

• CMA yields 6.2% for third-trimester anomalies.

• NIPT may miss 70% of CMA findings.

• Ultrasound matched 80% of CMA results.

Keywords

chromosomal microarray analysis - third trimester - ultrasound - sonographic anomalies - noninvasive prenatal testing - amniocentesis - late-onset fetal anomalies

Publication History

Received: 26 June 2023

Accepted: 24 March 2024

Article published online:
30 April 2024

• References

• 1 Prayer D, Malinger G, Brugger PC. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49 (05) 671-680
• 2 Dall'Asta A, Stampalija T, Mecacci F. et al. Incidence, clinical features and perinatal outcome in anomalous fetuses with late-onset growth restriction: cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 60 (05) 632-639
• 3 Drukker L, Bradburn E, Rodriguez GB, Roberts NW, Impey L, Papageorghiou AT. How often do we identify fetal abnormalities during routine third-trimester ultrasound? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2021; 128 (02) 259-269
• 4 Bardin R, Hadar E, Haizler-Cohen L. et al. Cytogenetic analysis in fetuses with late onset abnormal sonographic findings. J Perinat Med 2018; 46 (09) 975-982
• 5 Drukker L, Cavallaro A, Salim I, Ioannou C, Impey L, Papageorghiou AT. How often do we incidentally find a fetal abnormality at the routine third-trimester growth scan? A population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (06) 919.e1-919.e13
• 6 Drukker L, Impey L, Papageorghiou AT. Fetal abnormalities detected during third-trimester ultrasound for fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (06) 637-638
• 7 Vogel I, Petersen OB, Christensen R, Hyett J, Lou S, Vestergaard EM. Chromosomal microarray as primary diagnostic genomic tool for pregnancies at increased risk within a population-based combined first-trimester screening program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51 (04) 480-486
• 8 Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G. et al. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (06) 610-620
• 9 Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B. et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (23) 2175-2184
• 10 Robson SC, Chitty LS, Morris S. et al. Evaluation of Array Comparative genomic Hybridisation in prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies: a multicentre cohort study with cost analysis and assessment of patient, health professional and commissioner preferences for array comparative genomic hybridisation. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation 2017; 4 (01) 1-104
• 11 Gruchy N, Decamp M, Richard N. et al. Array CGH analysis in high-risk pregnancies: comparing DNA from cultured cells and cell-free fetal DNA. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32 (04) 383-388
• 12 Cai M, Lin N, Su L. et al. Copy number variations in ultrasonically abnormal late pregnancy fetuses with normal karyotypes. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 15094
• 13 Sharma A, Kaul A. Late amniocentesis: better late than never? A single referral centre experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023; 308 (02) 463-470
• 14 Li Y, Yan H, Chen J. et al. The application of late amniocentesis: a retrospective study in a tertiary fetal medicine center in China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021; 21 (01) 266
• 15 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Del Rio M. Normal two- and three-dimensional neurosonography of the prenatal brain | Ultrasonography of the Prenatal Brain, 3e | AccessObGyn | McGraw Hill Medical. Accessed March 17, 2023 at: https://obgyn.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=2015&sectionid=149926144
• 16 Phelan JP, Ahn MO, Smith CV, Rutherford SE, Anderson E. Amniotic fluid index measurements during pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1987; 32 (08) 601-604
• 17 Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, Gorfein I, Gordon ES. Birth weight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 2005; 7 (05) 311-314 . Accessed March 10, 2023 at: https://europepmc.org/article/med/15909464
• 18 Gardosi J. Customized fetal growth standards: rationale and clinical application. Semin Perinatol 2004; 28 (01) 33-40
• 19 Shao L, Akkari Y, Cooley LD. et al; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. Chromosomal microarray analysis, including constitutional and neoplastic disease applications, 2021 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2021; 23 (10) 1818-1829
• 20 Bailey JA, Eichler EE. Primate segmental duplications: crucibles of evolution, diversity and disease. Nat Rev Genet 2006; 7 (07) 552-564
• 21 Carvalho CMB, Lupski JR. Mechanisms underlying structural variant formation in genomic disorders. Nat Rev Genet 2016; 17 (04) 224-238
• 22 Dulgheroff FF, Peixoto AB, Petrini CG. et al. Fetal structural anomalies diagnosed during the first, second and third trimesters of pregnancy using ultrasonography: a retrospective cohort study. Sao Paulo Med J 2019; 137 (05) 391-400
• 23 Levy B, Wapner R. Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis. Fertil Steril 2018; 109 (02) 201-212
• 24 Ravitsky V, Roy MC, Haidar H. et al. The emergence and global spread of noninvasive prenatal testing. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2021; 22: 309-338
• 25 Dubois ML, Winters PD, Rodrigue MA, Gekas J. Patient attitudes and preferences about expanded noninvasive prenatal testing. Front Genet 2023; 14: 976051
• 26 Georgsson S, Sahlin E, Iwarsson M, Nordenskjöld M, Gustavsson P, Iwarsson E. Knowledge and attitudes regarding non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preferences for risk information among high school students in Sweden. J Genet Couns 2017; 26 (03) 447-454
• 27 Hou S, Zhang H, Li C. et al. [The value of non-invasive prenatal testing for the identification of numerical and structural chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in the fetuses]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi 2023; 40 (10) 1197-1203
• 28 Maya I, Salzer Sheelo L, Brabbing-Goldstein D. et al. Residual risk for clinically significant copy number variants in low-risk pregnancies, following exclusion of noninvasive prenatal screening-detectable findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (04) 562.e1-562.e8
• 29 Vora NL, Powell B, Brandt A. et al. Prenatal exome sequencing in anomalous fetuses: new opportunities and challenges. Genet Med 2017; 19 (11) 1207-1216
• 30 Best S, Wou K, Vora N, Van der Veyver IB, Wapner R, Chitty LS. Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38 (01) 10-19
• 31 Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Berkenstet M, Pras E. The limited effect of information on Israeli pregnant women at advanced maternal age who decide to undergo amniocentesis. Isr J Health Policy Res 2015; 4 (01) 23
• 32 Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S. et al; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 2015; 17 (05) 405-424