EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CNV-SEQ IN PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS OF FETAL CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES AT HANOI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Chang Vũ Thị Thu, Lan Hoàng Thị Ngọc, Anh Lương Thị Lan, Phượng Đoàn Thị Kim, Anh Nguyễn Hữu Đức, Hà Vũ Thị

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate fetal genetic abnormalities at the chromosomal and molecular levels (Copy Number Variation) in prenatal diagnosis. Research methodology: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on 163 fetuses from pregnant women who underwent amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis at Hanoi Medical University Hospital. Amniotic fluid samples were analyzed using two techniques: Karyotyping and CNV-seq. Results: The detection rate of abnormalities by CNV-seq was 27%, higher than that of traditional karyotyping (19.6%). CNV-seq identified 15 cases of microdeletions/duplications that were not detected by karyotyping, including 5 pathogenic or likely pathogenic cases, 1 benign case, and 9 variants of uncertain clinical significance. Conversely, traditional karyotyping detected 4 cases of balanced structural abnormalities that were not identified by CNV-seq. Conclusion: CNV-seq proved effective in detecting small copy number variations (deletions/duplications) that might be overlooked by karyotyping but could not detect balanced structural abnormalities such as inversions or translocations. The combination of both techniques can effectively improve the detection rate of chromosome abnormalities in prenatal diagnosis.

Article Details

References

1. D'amours G, Kibar Z, Mathonnet G, et al. Whole‐genome array CGH identifies pathogenic copy number variations in fetuses with major malformations and a normal karyotype. Clinical genetics. 2012;81(2):128-141.
2. Le Caignec C, Boceno M, Saugier-Veber P, et al. Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genomic hybridisation in fetuses with multiple malformations. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2005;42(2):121-128.
3. Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, et al. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Elsevier; 2020.
4. Zhang S, Xu Y, Lu D, Fu D, Zhao Y. Combined use of karyotyping and copy number variation sequencing technology in prenatal diagnosis. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14400.
5. Zhang H, Xu Z, Chen Q, et al. Comparison of the combined use of CNV-seq and karyotyping or QF-PCR in prenatal diagnosis: a retrospective study. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1):1862.
6. Shi Y, Ma J, Xue Y, Wang J, Yu B, Wang T. The assessment of combined karyotype analysis and chromosomal microarray in pregnant women of advanced maternal age: a multicenter study. Annals of translational medicine. 2019;7(14):318.
7. Wang J, Chen L, Zhou C, et al. Application of copy number variation sequencing for prenatal diagnosis in women at an advanced maternal age. Zhonghua yi xue yi Chuan xue za zhi= Zhonghua Yixue Yichuanxue Zazhi= Chinese Journal of Medical Genetics. 2019;36(6):533-537.
8. Cirigliano V, Ejarque M, Canadas MP, et al. Clinical application of multiplex quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) for the rapid prenatal detection of common chromosome aneuploidies. Molecular human reproduction. 2001;7(10):1001-1006.