20-year experience on prenatal diagnosis in a reference university medical genetics center in Turkey

Background/aim: Although cutting edge procedures such as cell-free fetal DNA isolation from maternal blood are now available, invasive prenatal tests are still being used extensively for prenatal diagnosis. The study aims to evaluate the demographic data, indications, and cytogenetic results of 9297 results of patients who underwent prenatal invasive testing for genetic analysis that were referred for the last 20 years in a University Medical Genetics Center. Materials and methods: The records of 8363 amniocenteses, 626 chorionic villus, and 308 cordocenteses samples were retrospectively evaluated and analyzed regarding referral reasons, indications and their cytogenetic results. The total numbers and the percentages of each group were recorded; Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed to give the statistical likelihood of different events. Results: The number of referrals decreased significantly after 2009. Risk of having trisomy 21 as well as trisomy 13 and 18 significantly increased in parallel with advanced maternal age. When the 21–25 age group was compared to the older age groups in terms of having a trisomy 21 pregnancy, the risk doubled in the 36–40, 5 times higher in 41–45 and 10-fold in 46–50 age groups. No significant linear correlation between maternal serum screening test results and trisomy 21 was found, however the difference between the pregnancies whom cut-off value above and below 1/250 in maternal serum screening test were significant. Conclusion: These data have provided useful information on the frequency of referrals to the reference genetics department, and the feasibility of genetic services. By reviewing the indications and their corresponding results, we can offer invaluable insights that will be useful in genetic counseling and also in the development of more effective genetic strategies.Key words: Prenatal diagnosis, chromosome abnormalities, genetic counseling

PDF

___

1. Fonda AJ, Stoll K, Bernhardt BA. Pre-and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders. Seminars in Perinatology 2016; 40 (1): 44-55. doi: 10.1053/j. semperi.2015.11.007
2. Benn PA. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities through chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. In: Milunsky A, Milunsky JM (editors). Genetic Disorders and the Fetus: Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment. 7th ed. New Jersey, NJ, USA: JohnWiley & Sons Inc; 2004. pp. 178-267.
3. Nussbaum RL, McInnes RR, Huntington FW. Thompson & Thompson Genetics in Medicine. 8th ed. Chicago, IL, USA: Elsevier Inc; 2016.
4. Driscoll DA, Gross S. Clinical practice. Prenatal screening for aneuploidy. New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 360 (24): 2556-2562. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0900134
5. Levy B, Stosic M. Traditional prenatal diagnosis: past to present. Methods in Molecular Biology 2019; 1885: 3-22. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8889-1_1
6. Hsu LY, Benn PA, Tannenbaum HL, Perlis TE, Carlson AD. Chromosomal polymorphisms of 1916 and Y in 4 major ethnic groups: a large prenatal study. American Journal of Medical Genetics 1987; 26 (1): 95-101. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320260116
7. Mozdarani H, Meybodi AM, Karimi H. Impact of pericentric inversion of Chromosome 9 [inv (9) (p11q12)] on infertility. Indian Journal of Human Genetics 2007; 13 (1): 26-29. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.32031
8. Xiao H, Yang YL, Zhang CY, Liao EJ, Zhao HR et al. Karyotype analysis with amniotic fluid in 12365 pregnant women with indications for genetic amniocentesis and strategies of prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2016; 36 (3): 293-296. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2015.1041889
9. Ferguson‐Smith MA, Yates JRW. Maternal age specific rates for chromosome aberrations and factors influencing them: report of a collaborative European study on 52965 amniocenteses. Prenatal Diagnosis 1984; 4: 5-44. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970040704
10. Tseng JJ, Chou MM, Lo FC, Lai HY, Chen MH et al. Detection of chromosome aberrations in the second trimester using genetic amniocentesis: experience during 1995-2004. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006; 45 (1): 39-41. doi: 10.1016/S1028-4559(09)60188-1
11. Zhu Y, Lu S, Bian X, Wang H, Zhu B et al. A multicenter study of fetal chromosomal abnormalities in Chinese women of advanced maternal age. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2016; 55 (3): 379-384. doi: 10.1016/j. tjog.2016.01.002
12. Balkan M, Akbas H, Kalkanli S, Sakar MN, Fidanboy M et al. Evaluation of clinical and cytogenetic findings on 1068 secondtrimester amniocenteses in Southeast Turkey. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011; 38 (4): 364- 368.
13. Nicolaides KH. Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenatal Diagnosis 2011; 31 (1): 7-15. doi: 10.1002/ pd.2637
14. Chang YW, Chang CM, Sung PL, Yang MJ, Li WH et al. An overview of a 30-year experience with amniocentesis in a single tertiary medical center in Taiwan. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012; 51 (2): 206-211. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2012.04.007
15. Danisman N, Kahyaoglu S, Celen S, Kahyaoglu I, Candemir Z et al. A retrospective analysis of amniocenteses performed for advanced maternal age and various other indications in Turkish women. Journal of Maternal Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2013; 26 (3): 242-245. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.733756
16. Han SH, An JW, Jeong GY, Yoon HR, Lee A et al. Clinical and cytogenetic findings on 31615 mid-trimester amniocenteses. Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine 2008; 28 (5): 378-385. doi: 10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.5.378
17. Andrew C, Koshy T, Gopal S, Paul SFD. A retrospective exploratory study of fetal genetic invasive procedures at a University Hospital. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 38 (7): 906-910. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1433645
18. Demirhan O, Pazarbaşı A, Güzel Aİ, Taştemir D, Yilmaz B et al. The reliability of maternal serum triple test in prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities of pregnant Turkish women. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 2011; 15 (10): 701-707. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2010.0171
19. Hsieh FJ, Ko TM, Tseng LH, Chang LS, Pan MF et al. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis in amniocentesis. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 1992; 91 (3): 276-282.
20. Kagan KO, Chitty LS, Cicero S, Eleftheriades M, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound findings before amniocentesis in selecting the method of analysing the sample. Prenatal Diagnosis 2007; 27 (1): 34-39. doi: 10.1002/pd.1615
21. Karaoguz MY, Bal F, Yakut T, Ercelen NO, Ergun MA et al. Cytogenetic results of amniocentesis materials: incidence of abnormal karyotypes in the Turkish collaborative study. Genetic Counseling 2006; 17 (2): 219-230.
22. Sun Y, Zhang P, Zhang N, Rong L, Yu X et al. Cytogenetic analysis of 3387 umbilical cord blood in pregnant women at high risk for chromosomal abnormalities. Molecular Cytogenetics 2020; 13: 2. doi: 10.1186/s13039-020-0469-6
23. Jummaat F, Ahmad S, Mohamed Ismail NA. 5-year review on amniocentesis and its maternal fetal complications. Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation 2019; 40 (2). doi: 10.1515/hmbci-2019-0006
24. Ocak Z, Özlü T, Yazıcıoğlu HF, Özyurt O, Aygün M. Clinical and cytogenetic results of a large series of amniocentesis cases from Turkey: report of 6124 cases. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 2014; 40 (1): 139-146. doi: 10.1111/ jog.12144
25. Tekcan A, Tural S, Elbistan M, Kara N, Guven D et al. The combined QF-PCR and cytogenetic approach in prenatal diagnosis. Molecular Biology Reports 2014; 41 (11): 7431- 7436. doi: 10.1007/s11033-014-3630-7