We have located links that may give you full text access.
The likelihood of detecting abnormal karyotypes in fetuses with a single major anomaly or "soft" marker on ultrasonographic scanning.
Clinical Dysmorphology 2024 Februrary 17
OBJECTIVE: Fetuses with abnormal karyotypes often exhibit distinctive ultrasonographic markers, including major anomalies and "soft" markers, indicating potential chromosomal issues. A crucial consideration arises when a single fetal anomaly is detected, raising the question of whether karyotyping is warranted, given the associated procedural risks. Our objective was to establish correlations between single fetal anomalies identified through ultrasound and chromosomal abnormalities.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study analyzed the karyotype of 1493 fetuses and detected a single ultrasonographic anomaly over a 16-year period. Karyotyping was performed using the standard karyotype technique. Moreover, data regarding the type of anomaly detected ultrasonographically, karyotype results, and outcomes following interventions were collected. Among other methods, the use of positive likelihood ratios (LR+) was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound compared to karyotyping.
RESULTS: In total, an aberrant karyotype was identified in 99 fetuses (6.6%). This was most commonly observed in cases involving a "soft" marker, occurring in 27 out of 218 fetuses (12.4%). The most frequently detected aberrant karyotype resulted from aneuploidies (80.6% of cases), notably trisomy 21 (50.5%). "Soft" markers predicted chromosomal issues (LR+ = 1.9; OR = 2.4), and isolated polyhydramnios (LR+ = 1.54; OR = 1.6) showed significance in predicting fetal chromosomal aberrations.
CONCLUSION: When assessing the necessity for karyotyping in fetuses with single major anomalies or "soft" markers, it is crucial to consider individual risks for chromosomopathies, including the LR+ of the detected marker. In cases where fetuses exhibit isolated anomalies with a normal karyotype, additional diagnostic measures, such as molecular cytogenetic and molecular genetics techniques, may become necessary.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study analyzed the karyotype of 1493 fetuses and detected a single ultrasonographic anomaly over a 16-year period. Karyotyping was performed using the standard karyotype technique. Moreover, data regarding the type of anomaly detected ultrasonographically, karyotype results, and outcomes following interventions were collected. Among other methods, the use of positive likelihood ratios (LR+) was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound compared to karyotyping.
RESULTS: In total, an aberrant karyotype was identified in 99 fetuses (6.6%). This was most commonly observed in cases involving a "soft" marker, occurring in 27 out of 218 fetuses (12.4%). The most frequently detected aberrant karyotype resulted from aneuploidies (80.6% of cases), notably trisomy 21 (50.5%). "Soft" markers predicted chromosomal issues (LR+ = 1.9; OR = 2.4), and isolated polyhydramnios (LR+ = 1.54; OR = 1.6) showed significance in predicting fetal chromosomal aberrations.
CONCLUSION: When assessing the necessity for karyotyping in fetuses with single major anomalies or "soft" markers, it is crucial to consider individual risks for chromosomopathies, including the LR+ of the detected marker. In cases where fetuses exhibit isolated anomalies with a normal karyotype, additional diagnostic measures, such as molecular cytogenetic and molecular genetics techniques, may become necessary.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
SGLT2 Inhibitors in Kidney Diseases-A Narrative Review.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 May 2
Use of Intravenous Albumin: A Guideline from the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines.Chest 2024 March 5
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app