Clinical trial NCT04814563: Evaluation of the Relevance of Comparative Genomic Hybridization in Prenatal Diagnosis
Official title: Evaluation of the Contribution of Comparative Genomic Hybridization Compared to Karyotype for the Detection of Genetic Abnormalities According to Ultrasound Call Signs in Prenatal Screening: the Cohort of the Nancy Multidisciplinary Center for Prenatal Diagnosis From 2012 to 2018
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: UNKNOWN
Conditions: Comparative Genomic Hybridization
Keywords: Prenatal diagnosis
Ultrasound sign
Lead sponsor: Central Hospital, Nancy, France
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2021-03-24
Enrollment: 830
Sex: FEMALE
Standard ages: CHILD
ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Observational model: COHORT
Time perspective: RETROSPECTIVE
Sampling method: NON_PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: All patients who underwent amniocentesis or chorionic villus puncture during their pregnancy due to ultrasound call sign with CGH-array performed at the Nancy University Hospital genetics laboratory

Brief summary: Pre-natal diagnosis is developing nowadays thanks to the improvement of ultrasound performances but also of genetic analysis techniques.

The karyotype was previously the reference technique for genetic analysis. The development of comparative genomic hybridization, consisting of comparative genomic hybridization on DNA sequences and allowing the diagnosis of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements, has made it possible to increase the resolution threshold for the detection of genetic anomalies. This technique can be performed both pre and post natal. In pre-natal, the indications for this genetic study are based on ultrasound signs and are regularly updated in the international literature. Due to the complete analysis of the genome and the increase of the resolution threshold, genetic anomalies not related to the detected ultrasound pathology may be discovered and may pose ethical problems from a genetic counseling point of view.

To date, the diagnostic performance of comparative genomic hybridization as a complement to karyotype is being confirmed and needs to be clarified in order to limit the risk of incidental discovery of genetic anomalies whose significance remains unknown.

Through the study that the investigator would like to carry out, the investigator seek to evaluate the diagnostic contribution of this comparative genomic hybridization technique compared to the data provided by the karyotype according to the various ultrasound call signs on the Nancy cohort of files presented to the multidisciplinary pre-natal diagnosis committee, since the launch of the comparative genomic hybridization in Nancy in 2012 until 2018.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* CGH-array performed for ultrasound findings at the genetic laboratory of the Nancy University Hospital from 01/10/2012 to 31/12/2018
* Results of the CGH-array presented to the multidisciplinary pre-natal diagnosis committee of Nancy

Exclusion Criteria:

* patients who objected to the use of their data for research purposes when signing the informed consent form given during the genetic consultation

Primary outcomes:
measure: CGH-array abnormality
timeFrame: baseline
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Type of ultrasound call sign
timeFrame: baseline
measure: Genotype-phenotype concordance
timeFrame: baseline
measure: Particular gravity
timeFrame: baseline
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Nancy
country: France
facility: Nancy University Hospital
Study officials:
affiliation: Central Hospital, Nancy, France
name: Estelle PERDRIOLLE-GALET, Doctor
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Rudolf G, Lovrecic L, Tul N, Teran N, Peterlin B. The frequency of CNVs in a cohort population of consecutive fetuses with congenital anomalies after the termination of pregnancy. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019 Jun;7(6):e658. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.658. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
citation: Stosic M, Levy B, Wapner R. The Use of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018 Mar;45(1):55-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2017.10.002. Epub 2017 Dec 9.
citation: Lo JO, Shaffer BL, Feist CD, Caughey AB. Chromosomal microarray analysis and prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014 Oct;69(10):613-21. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000119.
citation: Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, Shih JC, Lin TH, Su YN. Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies. BJOG. 2012 Apr;119(5):614-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03279.x. Epub 2012 Feb 7.
citation: Wou K, Levy B, Wapner RJ. Chromosomal Microarrays for the Prenatal Detection of Microdeletions and Microduplications. Clin Lab Med. 2016 Jun;36(2):261-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2016.01.017. Epub 2016 Mar 28.
citation: Levy B, Wapner R. Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis. Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):201-212. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.005.
citation: Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, Savage M, Platt LD, Saltzman D, Grobman WA, Klugman S, Scholl T, Simpson JL, McCall K, Aggarwal VS, Bunke B, Nahum O, Patel A, Lamb AN, Thom EA, Beaudet AL, Ledbetter DH, Shaffer LG, Jackson L. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 6;367(23):2175-84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203382.