4.0 Article

Population-based carrier screening for cystic fibrosis in Victoria: The first three years experience

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01045.x

关键词

carrier; cystic fibrosis; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common inherited, life-shortening condition affecting Australian children. The carrier frequency is one per 25 and most babies with CF are born to parents with no family history. Carrier testing is possible before a couple has an affected infant. Aims: To report the outcomes of a carrier screening program for CF. Method: Carrier screening was offered to women and couples planning a pregnancy, or in early pregnancy, through obstetricians and general practitioners in Victoria, Australia. Samples were collected by cheek swab and posted to the laboratory. Twelve CFTR gene mutations were tested. Carriers were offered genetic counselling and partner testing. Carrier couples were offered prenatal testing by chorionic villous sampling (CVS) if pregnant. The number of people tested, carriers detected and pregnancy outcomes were recorded from January 2006 to December 2008. Results: A total of 3200 individuals were screened (3000 females). One hundred and six carriers were identified (one per 30, 95% confidence interval one per 25, one per 36). All carrier partners were screened, and nine carrier couples identified (total carriers 115). Ninety-six individuals (83%) were carriers of the p.508del mutation. Of the nine carrier couples, six were pregnant at the time of screening (five natural conception and one in vitro fertilisation) and all had CVS (mean gestation 12.5 weeks). Two fetuses were affected, three were carriers and one was not a carrier. Termination of pregnancy was undertaken for the affected fetuses. Conclusion: Carrier screening for CF by obstetricians and general practitioners by cheek swab sample can be successfully undertaken prior to pregnancy or in the early stages of pregnancy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据