Original Paper

Is Rapid Aneuploidy Screening Used Alone Acceptable in Prenatal Diagnosis? An Evaluation of the Possible Role of Ultrasound Examination
P. Gaudry^a, A. Lebbar^b, A. Choiset^b, S. Girard^b, F. Lewin^c, V. Tsatsaris^c, G. Grangé<sup>c

a</sup>Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Begin, Saint-Mandé; Departments of
^bCytogenetics and
^cObstetrics and Gynecology, AP-HP, Group Hospitalier Cochin Port-Royal – Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Paris, France

Address of Corresponding Author

Fetal Diagn Ther 2009;25:285-290 (DOI: 10.1159/000224429)

  Key Words

• Amniocentesis
• Rapid prenatal diagnosis
• Chromosomal aberrations

  Abstract

Objective: The objectives of this study were to use a factual basis to: (1) determine the number, nature, and probable phenotypic consequences of karyotype anomalies that would probably be missed (structural anomalies, uncommon aneuploidies and mosaic aneuploidies) by rapid aneuploidy screening (RAS), and (2) appraise whether RAS can replace traditional karyotyping when amniocenteses are performed for increased risk of Down’s syndrome by maternal serum screening or advanced maternal age in the absence of ultrasound abnormality. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analysed the indications, results and outcomes of 5,713 consecutive amniocenteses over a 5-year period at a single prenatal diagnosis centre in Paris. Results: Advanced maternal age and increased Down’s risk with maternal serum marker were the most common indications. Chromosome abnormalities were detected in 3.64% of the pregnancies tested, and unexpected structural anomalies in 0.63% (n = 36). Translocations were more likely to be reciprocal, balanced and of parental origin. There were 6 mosaic gonosomal aneuploidies. Overall, 4 mosaic autosomal aneuploidies and 36 structural aberrations would not have been recognised by RAS alone. Of the 4 mosaic autosomal aneuploidies, all were terminated, one had major malformations and the others had discrete signs that a good quality ultrasound examination would probably not detect. Of the 36 structural aberrations, 24 would be undetected by ultrasound scan, from which 6 would be associated with a significant risk of an abnormal phenotype outcome. Conclusion: In conclusion, our data do not provide evidence that RAS can replace the traditional karyotype. It is probably impossible to arrive in a universal conclusion of which approach (karyotype or RAS) is definitely better than the other. Each prenatal centre could have its own approach depending on the local data analysis, including quality control of ultrasounds.

Copyright © 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

  Author Contacts

Patrice Gaudry
Service de Gynécologie et Obstétrique
Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Begin
69 avenue de Paris, FR–94160 Saint-Mandé (France)
Tel./Fax +33 143 562 361, E-Mail patrice.gaudry@laposte.net

  Article Information

Received: January 4, 2008
Accepted after revision: September 15, 2008
Published online: June 11, 2009
Number of Print Pages : 6
Number of Figures : 0, Number of Tables : 3, Number of References : 22