Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2012 Dec 6;367(23):2175-84.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203382.

Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis

Ronald J Wapner  1 , Christa Lese Martin, Brynn Levy, Blake C Ballif, Christine M Eng, Julia M Zachary, Melissa Savage, Lawrence D Platt, Daniel Saltzman, William A Grobman, Susan Klugman, Thomas Scholl, Joe Leigh Simpson, Kimberly McCall, Vimla S Aggarwal, Brian Bunke, Odelia Nahum, Ankita Patel, Allen N Lamb, Elizabeth A Thom, Arthur L Beaudet, David H Ledbetter, Lisa G Shaffer, Laird Jackson
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis

Ronald J Wapner et al. N Engl J Med. .

Abstract

Background: Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis.

Methods: Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central karyotyping laboratory. Each sample was split in two; standard karyotyping was performed on one portion and the other was sent to one of four laboratories for chromosomal microarray.

Results: We enrolled a total of 4406 women. Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), abnormal result on Down's syndrome screening (18.8%), structural anomalies on ultrasonography (25.2%), and other indications (9.4%). In 4340 (98.8%) of the fetal samples, microarray analysis was successful; 87.9% of samples could be used without tissue culture. Microarray analysis of the 4282 nonmosaic samples identified all the aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements identified on karyotyping but did not identify balanced translocations and fetal triploidy. In samples with a normal karyotype, microarray analysis revealed clinically relevant deletions or duplications in 6.0% with a structural anomaly and in 1.7% of those whose indications were advanced maternal age or positive screening results.

Conclusions: In the context of prenatal diagnostic testing, chromosomal microarray analysis identified additional, clinically significant cytogenetic information as compared with karyotyping and was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements but did not identify balanced translocations and triploidies. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01279733.).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Screening and Enrollment of the Study Participants
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Sagoo GS, Butterworth AS, Sanderson S, Shaw-Smith C, Higgins JP, Burton H. Array CGH in patients with learning disability (mental retardation) and congenital anomalies: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies and 13,926 subjects. Genet Med. 2009;11:139–46. - PubMed
    1. Shaffer LG, Kashork CD, Saleki R, et al. Targeted genomic microarray analysis for identification of chromosome abnormalities in 1500 consecutive clinical cases. J Pediatr. 2006;149:98–102. Erratum, J Pediatr 2006;149:585. - PubMed
    1. Cooper GM, Coe BP, Girirajan S, et al. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nat Genet. 2011;43:838–46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaminsky EB, Kaul V, Paschall J, et al. An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities. Genet Med. 2011;13:777–84. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mefford HC, Batshaw ML, Hoffman EP. Genomics, intellectual disability, and autism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:733–43. - PMC - PubMed

Associated data