无细胞胎儿DNA时代的侵入性产前诊断:单一中心的经验。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05042-4
Ilaria Ponziani, Marta Pallottini, Giulia Masini, Chiara Franchi, Silvia Balli, Lucia Pasquini
{"title":"无细胞胎儿DNA时代的侵入性产前诊断:单一中心的经验。","authors":"Ilaria Ponziani,&nbsp;Marta Pallottini,&nbsp;Giulia Masini,&nbsp;Chiara Franchi,&nbsp;Silvia Balli,&nbsp;Lucia Pasquini","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05042-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to assess procedure-related risk of fetal loss associated with amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling and compare amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling with cell-free fetal DNA in identifying chromosomal abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study on 4712 women with singleton pregnancy who underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis, from January 2010 to December 2019. Postprocedural miscarriage rate (before 24<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation) was determined for the whole population and for the group of women aged ≥35 years who underwent the procedure for the sole maternal age.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Miscarriage rate following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling were 0.50% and 1.25%, respectively. In our population of women undergoing invasive procedure for advanced maternal age cell-free fetal DNA would have identified only the 49 cases of trisomy 21, 13 and 18, whereas the other 21 more subtle chromosomal anomalies, diagnosed by amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, would have been missed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who opt for cell-free fetal DNA test should be informed of the screening nature of the test and the possibility of false positive results. Invasive prenatal testing has probably lower risks than previously reported and has unquestionable advantages such as the certainty of diagnosis and the ability to detect a higher number of chromosomal abnormalities, when compared with cell-free fetal DNA.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":"75 5","pages":"393-398"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Invasive prenatal diagnosis in the era of cell-free fetal DNA: experience at a single center.\",\"authors\":\"Ilaria Ponziani,&nbsp;Marta Pallottini,&nbsp;Giulia Masini,&nbsp;Chiara Franchi,&nbsp;Silvia Balli,&nbsp;Lucia Pasquini\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05042-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to assess procedure-related risk of fetal loss associated with amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling and compare amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling with cell-free fetal DNA in identifying chromosomal abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study on 4712 women with singleton pregnancy who underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis, from January 2010 to December 2019. Postprocedural miscarriage rate (before 24<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation) was determined for the whole population and for the group of women aged ≥35 years who underwent the procedure for the sole maternal age.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Miscarriage rate following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling were 0.50% and 1.25%, respectively. In our population of women undergoing invasive procedure for advanced maternal age cell-free fetal DNA would have identified only the 49 cases of trisomy 21, 13 and 18, whereas the other 21 more subtle chromosomal anomalies, diagnosed by amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, would have been missed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who opt for cell-free fetal DNA test should be informed of the screening nature of the test and the possibility of false positive results. Invasive prenatal testing has probably lower risks than previously reported and has unquestionable advantages such as the certainty of diagnosis and the ability to detect a higher number of chromosomal abnormalities, when compared with cell-free fetal DNA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\"75 5\",\"pages\":\"393-398\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05042-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05042-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们旨在评估与羊水穿刺和绒毛膜取样相关的胎儿丢失的手术相关风险,并将羊水穿刺和绒毛膜绒毛取样与无细胞胎儿DNA进行比较,以确定染色体异常。方法:对2010年1月至2019年12月接受侵入性产前诊断的4712名单胎妊娠妇女进行回顾性观察研究。测定了整个人群和年龄≥35岁的女性组的术后流产率(妊娠24+0周前),这些女性在唯一的产妇年龄接受了手术。结果:羊水穿刺和绒毛取样后流产率分别为0.50%和1.25%。在我们接受高龄产妇侵入性手术的女性群体中,无细胞胎儿DNA只能识别出49例21、13和18三体,而通过羊水穿刺和绒毛取样诊断的其他21例更细微的染色体异常则会被遗漏。结论:选择无细胞胎儿DNA检测的患者应了解检测的筛查性质和假阳性结果的可能性。与无细胞胎儿DNA相比,侵入性产前检测的风险可能比以前报道的要低,并且具有毋庸置疑的优势,如诊断的确定性和检测更多染色体异常的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Invasive prenatal diagnosis in the era of cell-free fetal DNA: experience at a single center.

Background: We aimed to assess procedure-related risk of fetal loss associated with amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling and compare amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling with cell-free fetal DNA in identifying chromosomal abnormalities.

Methods: A retrospective observational study on 4712 women with singleton pregnancy who underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis, from January 2010 to December 2019. Postprocedural miscarriage rate (before 24+0 weeks gestation) was determined for the whole population and for the group of women aged ≥35 years who underwent the procedure for the sole maternal age.

Results: Miscarriage rate following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling were 0.50% and 1.25%, respectively. In our population of women undergoing invasive procedure for advanced maternal age cell-free fetal DNA would have identified only the 49 cases of trisomy 21, 13 and 18, whereas the other 21 more subtle chromosomal anomalies, diagnosed by amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, would have been missed.

Conclusions: Patients who opt for cell-free fetal DNA test should be informed of the screening nature of the test and the possibility of false positive results. Invasive prenatal testing has probably lower risks than previously reported and has unquestionable advantages such as the certainty of diagnosis and the ability to detect a higher number of chromosomal abnormalities, when compared with cell-free fetal DNA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
期刊最新文献
Use of the Knutson's paste for the treatment of perineal wound dehiscence after vaginal delivery: a single-center clinical experience. Endometriosis and risk factors in pregnancy, labor and delivery: a case-control study. Recipients' age, fresh embryo and blastocyst-stage embryo transfer as favorable factors in a transnational oocyte donation program. The role of colposcopy in HPV vaccination era. The predictive role of uterocervical angle in labor outcomes: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1