English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To investigate the application value and limitations of fluorescence  in situ  hybridization (FISH) in prenatal diagnosis of positive results for trisomies 13, 18, 21 (T13, T18, T21) and sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) indicated by noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Samples from women who underwent prenatal diagnosis for the indication of positive NIPS of T13, T18, T21, and SCAs were collected. Each sample was split into two for both karyotype analysis and FISH analysis. The efficiency and consistency of FISH were assessed for the detection of chromosome abnormalities in the indications of positive NIPS results compared with karyotyping. A total of 649 pregnant women who scored positive for clinical significance of fetal chromosome abnormalities by NIPS were enrolled in our study, including T 13 (6%), T18 (14.3%), T21 (44.7%), SCAs (35.0%). From the following diagnostic test, the positive predictive value (PPV) of NIPS for T13, T18, T21, and SCAs was 17.9, 60.2, 89.3, and 43.6% respectively. FISH analysis was successful in all samples. Compared with karyotyping, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.3 and 100%, respectively. 95.7% (621/649) were fully concordant with karyotyping. 3.2% (21/649) cases were incompletely concordant with the karyotyping, among these cases, the FISH analysis identified all the aneuploidies, but karyotyping analysis provided more information about the chromosomal structure. There were 7 cases (1.1%, 7/649) of anomalies diagnosed by karyotype but missed out by FISH, all of which occurred in cases with the indication of SCAs. If the indications were confined to cases with a positive NIPS of T13, T18, T21, the diagnostic consistency of the two methods almost perfectly agree, and all the aneuploidies were detected by the FISH assay. FISH analysis was highly consistent in determining whether the fetus was euploid or not in the prenatal diagnosis for the patients with positive NIPS results compared with karyotyping (kappa= 0.976,  p  &lt; .01). For the prenatal diagnostic indications of positive NIPS of T13, T18, T21, and SCAs, FISH was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and provided a quick diagnosis to alleviate anxiety. However, the missed risk of FISH analysis for structural chromosomal abnormalities should be taken seriously and fully informed during genetic counseling.

Evaluation of the practical applications of fluorescence in situ hybridization in the prenatal diagnosis of positive noninvasive prenatal screenings