Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • About
  • Communities & Collections
  • Advanced Search
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Medicine
  3. Faculty of Medicine
  4. Gestation related karyotype, QF-PCR and CGH-array failure rates in diagnostic amniocentesis
 
  • Details
Gestation related karyotype, QF-PCR and CGH-array failure rates in diagnostic amniocentesis
File(s)
AMNIO manuscript 03 05 16 ccl.doc (52.5 KB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Lawin O'Brien, A
Dall'Asta, A
Tapon, D
Mann, K
Ahn, JW
more
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data exist describing laboratory related failure rates in prenatal diagnosis. The aim of this study is to assess the laboratory associated failure rate for karyotype, QF-PCR and CGH-array following amniocentesis in relation to gestation. METHODS: Retrospective database study of amniocenteses performed 2004-2014 comparing laboratory failure rate for karyotype, QF-PCR and CGH-array between 16 + 0 and 40 + 0 weeks' gestation. RESULTS: A total of 10 484 amniotic fluid test results were collected in three databases. Karyotype failed in 41/1797 (2.3%) tests; failure rate was significantly greater with advancing gestation reaching 43% at 36-40 weeks. QF-PCR failed in 132/5715 tests (2.3%) and was significantly greater with advancing gestation reaching 7% at 36-40 weeks. For CGH-array, 10/298 tests (3.4%) failed analysis. In one case, no result was obtainable by any technique. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide gestation specific laboratory failure rates for amniocentesis enabling informed decisions about the timing and laboratory technique most applicable to the clinical situation. Before 20 weeks, karyotype is least likely to fail of the three techniques. However, in the late third trimester, QF-PCR and, in particular, karyotyping are more likely to fail than CGH-array. Although there is some overlap between the three different tests, they may be preferentially offered in different clinical scenarios. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Date Issued
2016-06-30
Date Acceptance
2016-05-14
Citation
Prenatal Diagnosis, 2016, 36 (8), pp.708-713
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/43730
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4843
ISSN
1097-0223
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
708
End Page
713
Journal / Book Title
Prenatal Diagnosis
Volume
36
Issue
8
Copyright Statement
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.4843/abstract. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Genetics & Heredity
Obstetrics & Gynecology
MATERNAL CELL CONTAMINATION
PRENATAL-DIAGNOSIS
GENETIC AMNIOCENTESIS
AMNIOTIC-FLUID
PREGNANCY
MICROARRAY
EXPERIENCE
TRIMESTER
SAMPLES
RISK
Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
1103 Clinical Sciences
1114 Paediatrics And Reproductive Medicine
Publication Status
Published
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback