Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation

Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis?

Alvin S.T. Lim, T. H. Lim, Michelle M. Hess, S. K. Kee, Yvonne Y.F. Lau, Rebecca Gilbert, Thomas E. Hempel, Kirby J. Anderson, Dianna H. Zaleski, S. L. Tien, Patrick Chia, Raman Subramaniam, H. K. Tan, Ann S.A. Tan, Warren G Sanger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To assess the clinical utility of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation with chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y as a stand-alone test in detecting chromosomal abnormalities, and the types of chromosomal abnormalities missed. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: A restructured Government hospital in Singapore and an academic hospital in the United States. Participants: Cytogenetic data of prenatal specimens and results of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation of 5883 patients performed between January 2000 and August 2007 were reviewed. Results: Fluorescence in-situ hybridisation detected 558 (9.5%) patients with chromosomal abnormalities. Abnormal ultrasounds (70%) and maternal serum screens (21%) were the most indicative of chromosomal abnormalities. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for the five chromosomes of interest, the sensitivity and specificity were 99.3% and 99.9%, respectively. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for all chromosomes, the sensitivity decreased to 86.8%, whereas the specificity remained at 99.9%. Of 643 cases with karyotype abnormalities, 85 were fluorescence in-situ hybridisation- negative (false negative rate, 13.2%), which included structural rearrangements, chromosome mosaicism, and other trisomies. Despite abnormal ultrasound indications, fluorescence in-situ hybridisation missed 32 cases which included structural rearrangements, mosaicisms, and other trisomies. Conclusion: This study does not support fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test. Institutions supporting fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test must seriously consider the risks of a missed diagnosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-433
Number of pages7
JournalHong Kong Medical Journal
Volume16
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1 2010

Fingerprint

Aneuploidy
Prenatal Diagnosis
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Chromosome Aberrations
Karyotype
Mosaicism
Chromosomes
Trisomy
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 13
Singapore
Cytogenetics
Mothers
Sensitivity and Specificity
Serum

Keywords

  • Aneuploidy
  • Fluorescence
  • In situ hybridization
  • Karyotyping
  • Prenatal diagnosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Lim, A. S. T., Lim, T. H., Hess, M. M., Kee, S. K., Lau, Y. Y. F., Gilbert, R., ... Sanger, W. G. (2010). Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation: Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis? Hong Kong Medical Journal, 16(6), 427-433.

Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation : Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis? / Lim, Alvin S.T.; Lim, T. H.; Hess, Michelle M.; Kee, S. K.; Lau, Yvonne Y.F.; Gilbert, Rebecca; Hempel, Thomas E.; Anderson, Kirby J.; Zaleski, Dianna H.; Tien, S. L.; Chia, Patrick; Subramaniam, Raman; Tan, H. K.; Tan, Ann S.A.; Sanger, Warren G.

In: Hong Kong Medical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, 01.12.2010, p. 427-433.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lim, AST, Lim, TH, Hess, MM, Kee, SK, Lau, YYF, Gilbert, R, Hempel, TE, Anderson, KJ, Zaleski, DH, Tien, SL, Chia, P, Subramaniam, R, Tan, HK, Tan, ASA & Sanger, WG 2010, 'Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation: Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis?', Hong Kong Medical Journal, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 427-433.
Lim, Alvin S.T. ; Lim, T. H. ; Hess, Michelle M. ; Kee, S. K. ; Lau, Yvonne Y.F. ; Gilbert, Rebecca ; Hempel, Thomas E. ; Anderson, Kirby J. ; Zaleski, Dianna H. ; Tien, S. L. ; Chia, Patrick ; Subramaniam, Raman ; Tan, H. K. ; Tan, Ann S.A. ; Sanger, Warren G. / Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation : Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis?. In: Hong Kong Medical Journal. 2010 ; Vol. 16, No. 6. pp. 427-433.
@article{9668344269c847cf9ce700f3cab82547,
title = "Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation: Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis?",
abstract = "Objectives To assess the clinical utility of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation with chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y as a stand-alone test in detecting chromosomal abnormalities, and the types of chromosomal abnormalities missed. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: A restructured Government hospital in Singapore and an academic hospital in the United States. Participants: Cytogenetic data of prenatal specimens and results of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation of 5883 patients performed between January 2000 and August 2007 were reviewed. Results: Fluorescence in-situ hybridisation detected 558 (9.5{\%}) patients with chromosomal abnormalities. Abnormal ultrasounds (70{\%}) and maternal serum screens (21{\%}) were the most indicative of chromosomal abnormalities. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for the five chromosomes of interest, the sensitivity and specificity were 99.3{\%} and 99.9{\%}, respectively. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for all chromosomes, the sensitivity decreased to 86.8{\%}, whereas the specificity remained at 99.9{\%}. Of 643 cases with karyotype abnormalities, 85 were fluorescence in-situ hybridisation- negative (false negative rate, 13.2{\%}), which included structural rearrangements, chromosome mosaicism, and other trisomies. Despite abnormal ultrasound indications, fluorescence in-situ hybridisation missed 32 cases which included structural rearrangements, mosaicisms, and other trisomies. Conclusion: This study does not support fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test. Institutions supporting fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test must seriously consider the risks of a missed diagnosis.",
keywords = "Aneuploidy, Fluorescence, In situ hybridization, Karyotyping, Prenatal diagnosis",
author = "Lim, {Alvin S.T.} and Lim, {T. H.} and Hess, {Michelle M.} and Kee, {S. K.} and Lau, {Yvonne Y.F.} and Rebecca Gilbert and Hempel, {Thomas E.} and Anderson, {Kirby J.} and Zaleski, {Dianna H.} and Tien, {S. L.} and Patrick Chia and Raman Subramaniam and Tan, {H. K.} and Tan, {Ann S.A.} and Sanger, {Warren G}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "427--433",
journal = "Hong Kong Medical Journal",
issn = "1024-2708",
publisher = "Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rapid aneuploidy screening with fluorescence in-situ hybridisation

T2 - Is it a sufficiently robust stand-alone test for prenatal diagnosis?

AU - Lim, Alvin S.T.

AU - Lim, T. H.

AU - Hess, Michelle M.

AU - Kee, S. K.

AU - Lau, Yvonne Y.F.

AU - Gilbert, Rebecca

AU - Hempel, Thomas E.

AU - Anderson, Kirby J.

AU - Zaleski, Dianna H.

AU - Tien, S. L.

AU - Chia, Patrick

AU - Subramaniam, Raman

AU - Tan, H. K.

AU - Tan, Ann S.A.

AU - Sanger, Warren G

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - Objectives To assess the clinical utility of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation with chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y as a stand-alone test in detecting chromosomal abnormalities, and the types of chromosomal abnormalities missed. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: A restructured Government hospital in Singapore and an academic hospital in the United States. Participants: Cytogenetic data of prenatal specimens and results of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation of 5883 patients performed between January 2000 and August 2007 were reviewed. Results: Fluorescence in-situ hybridisation detected 558 (9.5%) patients with chromosomal abnormalities. Abnormal ultrasounds (70%) and maternal serum screens (21%) were the most indicative of chromosomal abnormalities. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for the five chromosomes of interest, the sensitivity and specificity were 99.3% and 99.9%, respectively. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for all chromosomes, the sensitivity decreased to 86.8%, whereas the specificity remained at 99.9%. Of 643 cases with karyotype abnormalities, 85 were fluorescence in-situ hybridisation- negative (false negative rate, 13.2%), which included structural rearrangements, chromosome mosaicism, and other trisomies. Despite abnormal ultrasound indications, fluorescence in-situ hybridisation missed 32 cases which included structural rearrangements, mosaicisms, and other trisomies. Conclusion: This study does not support fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test. Institutions supporting fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test must seriously consider the risks of a missed diagnosis.

AB - Objectives To assess the clinical utility of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation with chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y as a stand-alone test in detecting chromosomal abnormalities, and the types of chromosomal abnormalities missed. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: A restructured Government hospital in Singapore and an academic hospital in the United States. Participants: Cytogenetic data of prenatal specimens and results of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation of 5883 patients performed between January 2000 and August 2007 were reviewed. Results: Fluorescence in-situ hybridisation detected 558 (9.5%) patients with chromosomal abnormalities. Abnormal ultrasounds (70%) and maternal serum screens (21%) were the most indicative of chromosomal abnormalities. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for the five chromosomes of interest, the sensitivity and specificity were 99.3% and 99.9%, respectively. When comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridisation data with karyotype results for all chromosomes, the sensitivity decreased to 86.8%, whereas the specificity remained at 99.9%. Of 643 cases with karyotype abnormalities, 85 were fluorescence in-situ hybridisation- negative (false negative rate, 13.2%), which included structural rearrangements, chromosome mosaicism, and other trisomies. Despite abnormal ultrasound indications, fluorescence in-situ hybridisation missed 32 cases which included structural rearrangements, mosaicisms, and other trisomies. Conclusion: This study does not support fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test. Institutions supporting fluorescence in-situ hybridisation as a stand-alone test must seriously consider the risks of a missed diagnosis.

KW - Aneuploidy

KW - Fluorescence

KW - In situ hybridization

KW - Karyotyping

KW - Prenatal diagnosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951496282&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951496282&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 427

EP - 433

JO - Hong Kong Medical Journal

JF - Hong Kong Medical Journal

SN - 1024-2708

IS - 6

ER -