4.2 Article

Molecular and Cytogenetic Analysis in Stillbirth: Results from 481 Consecutive Cases

Journal

FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 326-332

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000361017

Keywords

Chromosomal abnormalities; Comparative genomic hybridization; Cytogenetics; Fetal karyotype; Intrauterine death; Maternal age; Quantitative fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council and Stockholm County Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The underlying causes of stillbirth are heterogeneous and in many cases unexplained. Our aim was to conclude clinical results from karyotype and quantitative fluorescence-polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) analysis of all stillbirths occurring in Stockholm County between 2008 and 2012. By screening a subset of cases, we aimed to study the possible benefits of chromosomal microarray (CMA) in the analysis of the etiology of stillbirth. Methods: During 2008-2012, 481 stillbirths in Stockholm County were investigated according to a clinical protocol including karyotype or QF-PCR analysis. CMA screening was performed on a subset of 90 cases, corresponding to all stillbirths from 2010 without a genetic diagnosis. Results: Chromosomal aberrations were detected by karyotype or QF-PCR analysis in 7.5% of the stillbirths. CMA analysis additionally identified two known syndromes, one aberration disrupting a known disease gene, and 26 variants of unknown significance. Furthermore, CMA had a significantly higher success rate than karyotyping (100 vs. 80%, p < 0.001). Discussion: In the analysis of stillbirth, conventional karyotyping is prone to failure, and QF-PCR is a useful complement. We show that CMA has a higher success rate and aberration detection frequency than these methods, and conclude that CMA is a valuable tool for identification of chromosomal aberrations in stillbirth. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available