Search Results (3)

Mosaicism for autosomal trisomy is uncommon in clinical practice. However, despite its rarity among both prenatally and postnatally diagnoses, there are a large number of characterized and published cases. Surprisingly, in contrast to regular trisomies, no attempts at systematic analyses of mosaic carriers’ demographics were undertaken. This is the first study aimed to address this gap. For that, we have screened more than eight hundred publications on mosaic trisomies, reviewing data including gender and clinical status of mosaic carriers, maternal age and reproductive history. In total, 596 publications were eligible for analysis, containing data on 948 prenatal diagnoses, including true fetal mosaicism (TFM) and confined placental mosaicism (CPM), and on 318 cases of postnatally detected mosaicism (PNM). No difference was found in maternal age between normal pregnancy outcomes with appropriate birth weight and those with intrauterine growth restriction. Unexpectedly, a higher proportion of advanced maternal ages (AMA) was found in normal outcomes compared to abnormal ones (abnormal fetus or newborn) and fetal losses, 73% vs. 56% and 50%, p = 0.0015 and p = 0.0011, correspondingly. Another intriguing finding was a higher AMA proportion in mosaic carriers with concomitant uniparental disomy (UPD) for chromosomes 7, 14, 15, and 16 compared to carriers with biparental disomy (BPD) (72% vs. 58%, 92% vs. 55%, 87% vs. 78%, and 65% vs. 24%, correspondingly); overall figures were 78% vs. 48%, p = 0.0026. Analysis of reproductive histories showed a very poor reporting but almost two-fold higher rate of mothers reporting a previous fetal loss from PNM cohort (in which almost all patients were clinically abnormal) compared to mothers from the TFM and CPM cohorts (with a large proportion of normal outcomes), 30% vs. 16%, p = 0.0072. The occurrence of a previous pregnancy with a chromosome abnormality was 1 in 13 in the prenatal cohort and 1 in 16 in the postnatal cohort, which are five-fold higher compared to published studies on non-mosaic trisomies. We consider the data obtained in this study to be preliminary despite the magnitude of the literature reviewed since reporting of detailed data was mostly poor, and therefore, the studied cohorts do not represent “big data”. Nevertheless, the information obtained is useful both for clinical genetic counseling and for modeling further studies. Full article

Current prenatal genetic evaluation showed a significantly increase in non-invasive screening and the reduction of invasive diagnostic procedures. To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy on detecting common aneuploidies, structural chromosomal rearrangements, and pathogenic copy number variants (pCNV), we performed a retrospective analysis on a case series initially analyzed by aneuvysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and karyotyping then followed by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Of the 386 cases retrieved from the past decade, common aneuploidies were detected in 137 cases (35.5%), other chromosomal structural rearrangements were detected in four cases (1%), and pCNV were detected in five cases (1.3%). The relative frequencies for common aneuploidies suggested an under detection of sex chromosome aneuploidies. Approximately 9.5% of cases with common aneuploidies showed a mosaic pattern. Inconsistent results between FISH and karyotyping were noted in cases with pseudo-mosaicism introduced by culture artifact or variable cellular proliferation from cells with mosaic karyotypic complements under in vitro cell culture. Based on findings from this case series, cell-based FISH and karyotyping should be performed to detect common aneuploidies, structural chromosomal abnormalities, and mosaic pattern. DNA-based aCGH and reflex FISH should be performed to detect and confirm genomic imbalances and pCNV. Practice points to ensure the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy were summarized. Full article

Chromosomal mosaicism is one of the primary interpretative issues in prenatal diagnosis. In this review, the mechanisms underlying feto-placental chromosomal mosaicism are presented. Based on the substantial retrospective diagnostic experience with chorionic villi samples (CVS) of a prenatal diagnosis laboratory the following items are discussed: (i) The frequency of the different types of mosaicism (confined placental, CPM, and true fetal mosaicisms, TFM); (ii) The risk of fetal confirmation after the detection of a mosaic in CVS stratified by chromosome abnormality and placental tissue involvement; (iii) The frequency of uniparental disomy for imprinted chromosomes associated with CPM; (iv) The incidence of false-positive and false-negative results in CVS samples analyzed by only (semi-)direct preparation or long term culture; and (v) The implications of the presence of a feto-placental mosaicism for microarray analysis of CVS and non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Full article