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
. 2018 Feb;38(3):184-189.
doi: 10.1002/pd.5212. Epub 2018 Feb 6.

ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient?

Sara B Hay  1 , Trilochan Sahoo  1 , Mary K Travis  1 , Karine Hovanes  1 , Natasa Dzidic  1 , Charles Doherty  1 , Michelle N Strecker  1
Affiliations

ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient?

Sara B Hay et al. Prenat Diagn. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for prenatal diagnosis in cases with 1 or more fetal structural abnormalities. For patients who elect prenatal diagnosis and have a structurally normal fetus, either microarray or karyotype is recommended. This study evaluates the frequency of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities (CSCA) that would have been missed if all patients offered the choice between CMA and karyotyping chose karyotyping.

Methods: A total of 3223 prenatal samples undergoing CMA were evaluated. Cases were categorized into 2 groups: those that met ACOG guidelines for CMA versus those that met ACOG guidelines for either CMA or karyotype.

Results: Of the 3223 cases, 1475 (45.8%) met ACOG recommendations for CMA, and 1748 (54.2%) met recommendations for either CMA or karyotype. In patients who could have elected either CMA or karyotype, 2.5% had CSCA that would have been missed if the patient had elected to pursue karyotype.

Conclusion: This study suggests that 2.5% of patients will have a CSCA that may be missed if the guidelines continue to suggest that CMA and karyotyping have equivalent diagnostic value for patients without a fetal structural abnormality.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Manning M, Hudgins L. Array‐based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med. 2010;12(11):742‐745. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Michelson DJ, Shevell MI, Sherr EH, Moeschler JB, Gropman AL, Ashwal S. Evidence report: genetic and metabolic testing on children with global developmental delay. Neurology. 2011;77(17):1629‐1635. - PubMed
    1. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175‐2184. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Microarrays and next‐generation sequencing technologies: the use of advanced genetic diagnostic tools in obstetrics and gynecology. Committee Opinion No. 682. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):e262‐e268. - PubMed
    1. Shaffer LG, Deball MP, Fisher AJ, et al. Experienced with microarray‐based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(10):976‐985. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources