Fetal mosaicism, should conventional karyotype always be performed?

Abstract

AbstractBackground and PurposeThe application of classical cytogenetic and DNA‐based molecular techniques to detect cell lineages of mosaicism derived from cultured or noncultured fetal cells may result in discordant results. This retrospective study aimed to assess the inconsistent diagnostic outcomes, technical availability, and limitations of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotyping for mosaicism.MethodologyA total of 75 fetuses diagnosed with mosaicism by karyotype analysis or CMA were selected, and the results from both the methods were compared and further analyzed.ResultsA total of 42 (56%, 42/75) CMA results were consistent with karyotypes, consisting of 22 cases of mosaic sex chromosomal abnormalities, 8 routine autosomal aneuploidy cases, 8 other autosome aneuploidy cases, 3 large cryptic genomic rearrangements, and 1 small supernumerary marker chromosome. Discrepancy between karyotype analysis and CMA was observed in 33 (44%, 33/75) mosaicisms involving 15 sex chromosomal abnormalities, 1 routine autosomal aneuploidies, 5 other autosome aneuploidy cases, 8 large cryptic genomic rearrangements, and 4 small supernumerary marker chromosomes.ConclusionConsidering the disparities between methods as well as the cell populations analyzed, both CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, CMA should ideally be used in combination with karyotyping to detect more cases of mosaicism than using either test alone.