4.6 Article

45,X/46,XX mosaicism below 30% of aneuploidy: clinical implications in adult women from a reproductive medicine unit

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 162, Issue 3, Pages 617-623

Publisher

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-09-0750

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Turner's syndrome (TS) is well known, but prognosis for 45, X/46, XX mosaicism below 30% of aneuploidy has not been established. We evaluated differences in clinical features and biological parameters between patients with numerical sex chromosome mosaicism diagnosed incidentally and control women. Design: Retrospective observational study of clinical features and biological parameters. Methods: Standard endocrinological and gynecological examination was done and early-follicular-phase blood values were collected from the medical records of women aged 21-43, who were referred to our ward from 1996 to 2006 because of infertility and were karyotyped. Seventy-one women with sex chromosome mosaicism (45, X/46, XX) ranging from 4 to 28% were assigned a chromosomally normal woman (46, XX) matched according to age (n=71). Results: In group 45, X/46, XX, 8% or more of aneuploidy accounted for a smaller height compared to controls (P=0.01). Body mass index was increased from 6% of aneuploidy (P=0.02) and was positively correlated to the percentage of 45, X cells (P=0.0001); menarche occurred earlier from 10% of aneuploidy (P=0.01) and was inversely correlated to the percentage of 45, X cells (P=0.045). No difference was found between the groups for FSH, LH, estradiol, inhibin B, and TSH values. Spontaneous abortions were more frequent in case of mosaicism (P=0.01), and recurrence was positively correlated to the percentage of aneuploidy (P=0.008). Conclusion: Sex chromosome mosaicism is responsible for clinical changes from 6% of aneuploidy, corresponding to the main phenotypical features of TS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available