International, collaborative assessment of 146,000 prenatal karyotypes: expected limitations if only chromosome-specific probes and fluorescent in-situ hybridization are used.

The development of chromosome-specific probes (CSP) and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) has allowed for very rapid identification of selected numerical abnormalities. We attempt here to determine, in principle, what percentage of abnormalities would be detectable if only CSP-FISH were performed without karyotype for prenatal diagnosis. A total of 146 128 consecutive karyotypes for prenatal diagnosis from eight centres in four countries for 5 years were compared with predicted detection if probes for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y were used, and assuming 100% detection efficiency. A total of 4163 abnormalities (2.85%) were found including 2889 (69. 4%) (trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, numerical sex chromosome abnormalities, and triploidies) which were considered detectable by FISH. Of these, 1274 were mosaics, translocations, deletions, inversions, rings, and markers which would not be considered detectable. CSP-FISH is a useful adjunct to karyotype for high risk situations, and may be appropriate in low risk screening, but should not be seen as a replacement for karyotype as too many structural chromosome abnormalities will be missed.

[1]  W. Holzgreve,et al.  Benefits of placental biopsies for rapid karyotyping in the second and third trimesters (late chorionic villus sampling) in high-risk pregnancies. , 1990, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  R D Clark,et al.  The phenotype of 45,X/46,XY mosaicism: an analysis of 92 prenatally diagnosed cases. , 1990, American journal of human genetics.

[3]  D. Warburton,et al.  De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints. , 1991, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  M. Evans Reproductive risks and prenatal diagnosis , 1992 .

[5]  K. Klinger,et al.  Rapid prenatal diagnosis by fluorescent in situ hybridization of chorionic villi: an adjunct to long-term culture and karyotype. , 1992, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  G. Henry,et al.  Early amniocentesis. , 1992, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[7]  G. Henry,et al.  Early amniocentesis : Prenatal diagnosis in the '90s , 1992 .

[8]  J. Philip,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis by in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes: Reduced sensitivity and potential risk of misdiagnosis in blood‐stained samples , 1993, Prenatal diagnosis.

[9]  K. Klinger,et al.  Rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies by fluorescence in situ hybridization: clinical experience with 4,500 specimens. , 1993, American journal of human genetics.

[10]  D. Van Opstal,et al.  Application of fluorescent in situ hybridization for ‘de novo’ anomalies in prenatal diagnosis , 1993, Prenatal diagnosis.

[11]  K. Kennedy,et al.  The need to reevaluate trisomy screening for advanced maternal age in prenatal diagnosis. , 1993, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  A. Pazarbasi,et al.  [Prenatal diagnosis]. , 1994, Revista chilena de obstetricia y ginecologia.

[13]  H. Kitchener,et al.  Scientific Essentials of Reproductive Medicine , 1996 .

[14]  M. Evans,et al.  Routine prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy by FISH studies in high-risk pregnancies. , 2000, American journal of medical genetics.