RESEARCH ON ULTRASONOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND COPY NUMBER VARIATIONS IN FETUSES WITH STRUCTURAL BRAIN ANOMALIES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To describe the ultrasonographic characteristics of fetal structural brain anomalies and to analyze associated copy number variations (CNVs) detected in these cases. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 207 fetuses diagnosed with brain anomalies via ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All cases underwent amniocentesis for CNV analysis at three major obstetric centers in Vietnam (National Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hanoi Medical University Hospital, and Hanoi Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital) between January 2023 and December 2024. Clinical and genetic data were collected and statistically analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. Results: The mean maternal age was 29.6 ± 5.4 years, and the mean gestational age at diagnosis was 20.3 ± 3.4 weeks. The majority of brain anomalies were identified during the second trimester. Among 207 cases, the most common abnormality was intracranial cystic or mass-like lesions (39.6%), followed by findings requiring differential diagnosis (35.2%), midline developmental anomalies (9.7%), posterior fossa malformations (9.2%), multiple malformations (3.9%), and cortical malformations (2.4%). Extra-central nervous system anomalies were observed in 35.7% of cases. Pathogenic or potentially pathogenic CNVs were identified in 55 fetuses (26.6%), totaling 65 CNVs, including 45 cases with a single CNV and 10 cases with two CNVs. The detection rate of abnormal CNVs was significantly higher in fetuses with additional anomalies compared to isolated brain anomalies (p < 0.001). Of the CNVs identified, 70.8% were classified as pathogenic, 7.7% as likely pathogenic, 15.4% as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 6.1% as benign or likely benign. Conclusion: Fetal brain structural anomalies represent a heterogeneous group of conditions, with cystic/mass lesions and ambiguous findings being the most frequently encountered. CNV analysis plays a pivotal role in the prenatal diagnostic evaluation of brain anomalies, especially in cases accompanied by extracranial malformations. The high proportion (>70%) of pathogenic or likely pathogenic CNVs highlights the clinical relevance of CNV classification for personalized counseling and diagnostic decision-making in prenatal settings.
Article Details
Keywords
fetal brain anomalies, prenatal ultrasound, copy number variation (CNV), prenatal diagnosis.
References
2. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1906. NobelPrize.org. Accessed August 22, 2024. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1906/golgi/facts/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEz2NJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHRKMUT1XKFTcpvexNUMXSj0DDnzg814oocmmaY7qaKm8LSo6ab9BLzZ9dw_aem_vGx07Duuq3qC8E5n2f66_Q
3. Sha Z, Francks C. Large-scale genetic mapping for human brain asymmetry. Handb Clin Neurol. 2025;208:241-254. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-15646-5.00029-4
4. Zhuang J, Zhang N, Chen Y, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and molecular cytogenetic characterization of fetuses with central nervous system anomalies using chromosomal microarray analysis: a seven-year single-center retrospective study. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):2271. doi:10.1038/ s41598-024-52831-9
5. Commission on Novel Technologies for Neurodevelopmental Copy Number Variants. Neurodevelopmental copy-number variants: A roadmap to improving outcomes by uniting patient advocates, researchers, and clinicians for collective impact. Am J Hum Genet. 2022;109(8):1353-1365. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2022. 07.003
6. Wang X, Sha J, Han Y, et al. Efficiency of copy number variation sequencing combined with karyotyping in fetuses with congenital heart disease and the following outcomes. Mol Cytogenet. 2024;17(1):12. doi:10.1186/s13039-024-00681-5
7. The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Accessed November 25, 2025. https://fetalmedicine.org/ education/fetal-abnormalities
8. Shi P, Liang H, Hou Y, et al. The uncertainty of copy number variants: pregnancy decisions and clinical follow-up. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023;229(2):170.e1-170.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.01.022