The clinical application of interphase FISH in prenatal diagnosis

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for five chromosomes (13, 18, 21, X and Y) detected 87 of 107 (81%) of the chromosome aberrations identified by conventional chromosome analysis applied to fetal interphase cells obtained by chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. The choice of FISH was solely determined by prospective parents after formal genetic counselling concerning the advantages and disadvantages of FISH analysis. Excluding known familial chromosome aberrations, if FISH analysis revealed normal signals, there was an overall residual risk of 1 in 149 for an undetectable chromosome aberration. This risk varied according to the indication for prenatal diagnosis: 1 in 177 for women of advanced maternal age; 1 in 60 for women at increased risk for Down syndrome based on maternal serum screening; and, 1 in 43 for women whose ultrasound examination revealed fetal anomalies. There were 20 cases of discordance between the FISH results and standard karyotype analysis: four were the outcome of a failure to apply the appropriate FISH probe; 16 were not detectable by the available FISH probes. Of these 16, nine were chromosome abnormalities with clinical significance and seven were familial. If FISH is to become a standard part of prenatal genetic diagnosis, genetic counselling that is sensitive to patient health needs must be based on accurate information about the biological and obstetrical implications of the results of FISH analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  B. Eiben,et al.  Rapid Prenatal Diagnosis of Aneuploidies in Uncultured Amniocytes by Fluorescence in situ Hybridization , 1999, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy.

[2]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  International, collaborative assessment of 146,000 prenatal karyotypes: expected limitations if only chromosome-specific probes and fluorescent in-situ hybridization are used. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[3]  E. Pergament,et al.  Factors Associated With Maternal Cell Contamination in Amniocentesis Samples as Evaluated by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  B. Eiben,et al.  A prospective comparative study on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of uncultured amniocytes and standard karyotype analysis , 1998, Prenatal diagnosis.

[5]  B. Ward,et al.  MATERNAL CELL CONTAMINATION IN UNCULTURED AMNIOTIC FLUID , 1996, Prenatal diagnosis.

[6]  J. Philip,et al.  Prenatal aneuploidy detection in interphase cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (Fish) , 1994, Prenatal diagnosis.

[7]  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.

[8]  S Schwartz,et al.  Efficacy and applicability of interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization for prenatal diagnosis. , 1993, American journal of human genetics.

[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]  T. Marteau,et al.  The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). , 1992, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[11]  D. Ledbetter.  The 'colorizing' of cytogenetics: is it ready for prime time? , 1992, Human molecular genetics.

[12]  P. Jacobs,et al.  A cytogenetic survey of 11,680 newborn infants , 1974, Annals of human genetics.

[13]  P. Jacobs,et al.  Chromosome studies on 3500 newborn male infants. , 1970, Lancet.

[14]  J. Ploem,et al.  Multiple fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 1990, Cytometry.