4.6 Article

The impact of chromosomal microarray on clinical management: a retrospective analysis

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages 657-664

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.18

Keywords

autism; clinical management; clinical utility; chromosomal microarray; intellectual disability

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [5P30 HD024061-23]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Chromosomal microarray has been widely adopted as the first-tier clinical test for individuals with multiple congenital anomalies, developmental delay, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorders. Although chromosomal microarray has been extensively shown to provide a higher diagnostic yield than conventional cytogenetic methods, some health insurers refuse to provide coverage for this test, claiming that it is experimental and does not affect patients' clinical management. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients who had abnormal chromosomal microarray findings reported by our laboratory over a 3-year period and quantified the management recommendations made in response to these results. Results: Abnormal chromosomal microarray findings were reported for 12.7% of patients (227/1,780). For patients with clinical follow-up notes available, these results had management implications for 54.5% of patients in the entire abnormal cohort (102/187) and for 42.1% of patients referred for isolated neurodevelopmental disorders (16/38). Recommendations included pharmacological treatment, cancer-related screening or exclusion of screening, contraindications, and referrals for further evaluation. Conclusion: These results empirically demonstrate the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray by providing evidence that management was directly affected for the majority of patients in our cohort with abnormal chromosomal microarray findings.

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