https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=28396697&retmode=xml&tool=Litmetric&email=readroberts32@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<!DOCTYPE PubmedArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMedArticle, 1st January 2024//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/out/pubmed_240101.dtd">
<PubmedArticleSet>
<PubmedArticle><MedlineCitation Status="PubMed-not-MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">28396697</PMID><DateRevised><Year>2020</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>30</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Electronic-eCollection"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">1755-8166</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>10</Volume><PubDate><Year>2017</Year></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Molecular cytogenetics</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Mol Cytogenet</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Efficient and cost-effective genetic analysis of products of conception and fetal tissues using a QF-PCR/array CGH strategy; five years of data.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><StartPage>12</StartPage><MedlinePgn>12</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="pii" ValidYN="Y">12</ELocationID><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1186/s13039-017-0313-9</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText Label="BACKGROUND" NlmCategory="BACKGROUND">Traditional testing of miscarriage products involved culture of tissue followed by G-banded chromosome analysis; this approach has a high failure rate, is labour intensive and has a resolution of around 10&#xa0;Mb. G-banded chromosome analysis has been replaced by molecular techniques in some laboratories; we previously introduced a QF-PCR/MLPA testing strategy in 2007. To improve diagnostic yield and efficiency we have now updated our testing strategy to a more comprehensive QF-PCR assay followed by array CGH. Here we describe the results from the last 5&#xa0;years of service.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="METHODS" NlmCategory="METHODS">Fetal tissue samples and products of conception were tested using QF-PCR which will detect aneuploidy for chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y. Samples that were normal were then tested by aCGH and all imbalance &gt;1Mb and fully penetrant clinically significant imbalance &lt;1Mb was reported.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS">QF-PCR analysis identified aneuploidy/triploidy in 25.6% of samples. aCGH analysis detected imbalance in a further 9.6% of samples; this included 1.8% with submicroscopic imbalance and 0.5% of uncertain clinical significance. This approach has a failure rate of 1.4%, compared to 30% for G-banded chromosome analysis.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS">This efficient QF-PCR/aCGH strategy has a lower failure rate and higher diagnostic yield than karyotype or MLPA strategies; both findings are welcome developments for couples with recurrent miscarriage.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Donaghue</LastName><ForeName>Celia</ForeName><Initials>C</Initials><Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0001-5484-1559</Identifier><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Genetics Department, Viapath Analytics, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT UK.</Affiliation><Identifier Source="GRID">grid.239826.4</Identifier></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Davies</LastName><ForeName>Nada</ForeName><Initials>N</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Genetics Department, Viapath Analytics, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT UK.</Affiliation><Identifier Source="GRID">grid.239826.4</Identifier></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Ahn</LastName><ForeName>Joo Wook</ForeName><Initials>JW</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Genetics Department, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT UK.</Affiliation><Identifier Source="GRID">grid.420545.2</Identifier></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Thomas</LastName><ForeName>Helen</ForeName><Initials>H</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Genetics Department, Viapath Analytics, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT UK.</Affiliation><Identifier Source="GRID">grid.239826.4</Identifier></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Ogilvie</LastName><ForeName>Caroline Mackie</ForeName><Initials>CM</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Genetics Department, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT UK.</Affiliation><Identifier Source="GRID">grid.420545.2</Identifier></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Mann</LastName><ForeName>Kathy</ForeName><Initials>K</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Genetics Department, Viapath Analytics, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT UK.</Affiliation><Identifier Source="GRID">grid.239826.4</Identifier></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2017</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>05</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>England</Country><MedlineTA>Mol Cytogenet</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>101317942</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>1755-8166</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Aneuploidy</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Fetal tissue</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Miscarriage</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Products of conception</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">QF-PCR</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">aCGH</Keyword></KeywordList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2017</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>25</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2017</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>22</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2017</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>12</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2017</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>12</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2017</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>12</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>1</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pmc-release"><Year>2017</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>5</Day></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>epublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28396697</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC5382376</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1186/s13039-017-0313-9</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">313</ArticleId></ArticleIdList><ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Gardner RJM, Sutherland GR. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counseling. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 384.</Citation></Reference><Reference><Citation>Donaghue C, Mann K, Docherty Z, et al. Combined QF-PCR and MLPA molecular analysis of miscarriage products: an efficient and robust alternative to karyotype analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(2):133&#x2013;7. doi: 10.1002/pd.2424.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1002/pd.2424</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">20024950</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Ahn JW, Bint S, Bergbaum A, et al. Array CGH as a first line diagnostic test in place of karyotyping for postnatal referrals - results from four years' clinical application for over 8,700 patients. Mol Cytogenet. 2013;6(1):16. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-6-16.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1186/1755-8166-6-16</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC3632487</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23560982</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Ahn JW, Bint S, Irving MD, et al. A new direction for prenatal chromosome microarray testing: software-targeting for detection of clinically significant chromosome imbalance without equivocal findings. Peer J. 2014;2:e354. doi: 10.7717/peerj.354.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.7717/peerj.354</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC4006225</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24795849</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Schaeffer A, Chung J, Heretis K, et al. Comparative Genomic Hybridization&#x2013;Array Analysis Enhances the Detection of Aneuploidies and Submicroscopic Imbalances in Spontaneous Miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74:1168&#x2013;1174. doi: 10.1086/421250.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1086/421250</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC1182080</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">15127362</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Kooper AJ, Faas BH, Feenstra I, et al. Best diagnostic approach for the genetic evaluation of fetuses after intrauterine death in first, second or third trimester: QF-PCR, karyotyping and/or genome wide SNP array analysis. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-7-6.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1186/1755-8166-7-6</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC3906897</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24428858</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Bug S, Solfrank B, Schmitz F, et al. Diagnostic utility of novel combined arrays for genome-wide simultaneous detection of aneuploidy and uniparental isodisomy in losses of pregnancy. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:43. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-7-43.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1186/1755-8166-7-43</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC4090657</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25013457</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Levy B, Sigurjonsson S, Pettersen B, et al. Genomic Imbalance in Products of Conception. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(2 Pt 1):202&#x2013;9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000325.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1097/AOG.0000000000000325</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25004334</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Lin SB, Xie YJ, Chen Z, et al. Improved assay performance of single nucleotide polymorphism array over conventional karyotyping in analyzing products of conception. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2015;78:408&#x2013;413. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.03.010.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1016/j.jcma.2015.03.010</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26004737</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Sahoo T, Dzidic N, Strecker MN, et al. Comprehensive genetic analysis of pregnancy loss by chromosomal microarrays: outcomes, benefits, and challenges. Genet Med. 2017;19(1):83&#x2013;89. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.69.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1038/gim.2016.69</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">27337029</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Wou K, Hyun Y, Chitayat D, et al. Analysis of tissue from products of conception and perinatal losses using QF-PCR and microarray: A three-year retrospective study resulting in an efficient protocol. Eur J Med Genet. 2016;59(8):417&#x2013;24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2016.05.011.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1016/j.ejmg.2016.05.011</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">27233578</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists website. RCOG GTG17: https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg17/ Accessed 14 Mar 2017</Citation></Reference><Reference><Citation>Barber JC, Cockwell AE, Grant E, et al. Is karyotyping couples experiencing recurrent miscarriage worth the cost? BJOG. 2010;117(7):885&#x2013;8. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02566.x.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02566.x</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">20482539</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Association for Clinical Cytogenetics and Clinical Molecular Genetics Society website. http://www.acgs.uk.com/media/765524/acc.cmgs_qfpcr_bp_jan2012_3.01.pdf Accessed 14 Mar 2017</Citation></Reference><Reference><Citation>Mann K, Hills A, Donaghue C, et al. Quantitative fluorescence PCR analysis of &gt;40,000 prenatal samples for the rapid diagnosis of trisomies 13, 18 and 21 and monosomy X. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(12):1197&#x2013;204. doi: 10.1002/pd.3986.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1002/pd.3986</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23097180</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Ahn JW, Mann K, Walsh S, et al. Validation and implementation of array comparative genomic hybridisation as a first line test in place of postnatal karyotyping for genome imbalance. Mol Cytogenet. 2010;3:9. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-3-9.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1186/1755-8166-3-9</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC2885406</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">20398301</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Association for Clinical Genetic Science website http://www.acgs.uk.com/media/949852/acgs_general_genetic_laboratory_reporting_recommendations_2015.pdf Accessed 14 March 2017</Citation></Reference><Reference><Citation>Ljunger E, Cnattingius S, Lundin C, et al. Chromosomal anomalies in first-trimester miscarriages. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(11):1103&#x2013;7. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00882.x.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00882.x</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16232180</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Viaggi CD, Cavani S, Malacarne M, et al. First-trimester euploid miscarriages analysed by array-CGH. J Appl Genet. 2013;54(3):353&#x2013;9. doi: 10.1007/s13353-013-0157-x.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s13353-013-0157-x</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23780398</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, Eichler EE, Cuckle H, et al. Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genet Med. 2013;15(6):478&#x2013;481. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.164.</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1038/gim.2012.164</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC3664238</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23258348</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference></ReferenceList></PubmedData></PubmedArticle></PubmedArticleSet>