Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:12:32.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Array CGH as a first-tier test for neonates with congenital heart disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2013

Kristine K. Bachman ,
Stephanie J. DeWard ,
Constantinos Chrysostomou ,
Ricardo Munoz  and
Suneeta Madan-Khetarpal
Kristine K. Bachman
Affiliation:
Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Stephanie J. DeWard
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Constantinos Chrysostomou
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America Department of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Ricardo Munoz
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America Department of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Suneeta Madan-Khetarpal*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Dr S. Madan-Khetarpal, MD, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 4401 Penn Avenue, FP Suite 1200, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, United States of America. Tel: 412-692-6583; Fax: 412-692-6472; E-mail: madans2@upmc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Efficient diagnosis of an underlying genetic aetiology in a patient with congenital heart disease is essential to optimising clinical care. Copy number variants are one aetiology of congenital heart disease; the majority are identifiable by targeted fluorescence in situ hybridisation or array comparative genomic hybridisation, not by classical cytogenetic analysis. This study assessed the utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation as a first-tier diagnostic test for neonates with congenital heart disease.

Study design

A prospective chart review of neonates with congenital heart disease in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC was performed. Patients were tested by array comparative genomic hybridisation and classical cytogenetic analysis simultaneously. Data collected included all chromosome abnormalities detected, physical examination findings, and imaging results. McNemar’s test was used to compare detection of array comparative genomic hybridisation and classical cytogenetic analysis.

Results

Of 45 patients, three (6.7%) had an abnormality detected by classical cytogenetic analysis and an additional 10 (22.2%) had a copy number variant detected by array comparative genomic hybridisation, highlighting an increased detection rate (p=0.008). Several of these copy number variants had unclear clinical significance, requiring additional investigation. The prevalence of dysmorphology and/or comorbidity in this population was 72%. Identification of dysmorphic features was greater when assessed by a geneticist than by providers of different subspecialties.

Conclusions

Array comparative genomic hybridisation has significant clinical utility as a first-tier test in this population, but it carries the potential for incidental findings and results of uncertain clinical significance. Collaboration between cardiologists and medical geneticists is essential to providing optimal clinical care.

Keywords

Congenital heart defectchromosome abnormalities
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 115 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hoffman, J. Incidence of congenital heart disease: I. Postnatal incidence. Pediatr Cardiol. 1995; 16: 103–113.Google Scholar
2. Faheed, AC, Gelb, BD, Seidman, JG, Seidman, CE. Genetics of congenital heart disease: the glass half empty. Circ Res 2013; 112: 707–720.Google Scholar
3. Thienpont, B, Mertens, L, de Ravel, T, et al. Submicroscopic chromosomal imbalances detected by array-CGH are a frequent cause of congenital heart defects in selected patients. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28: 2778–2784.Google Scholar
4. Breckpot, J, Thienpont, B, Peeters, H, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization as a diagnostic tool for syndromic heart defects. J Pediatr 2010; 156: 810–817.Google Scholar
5. Wilson, DI, Burn, J, Scambler, P, Goodship, J. DiGeorge syndrome: part of CATCH 22. J Med Genet 1993; 30: 852–856.Google Scholar
6. Baker, K, Sanchez-de-Toledo, J, Munoz, R, et al. Critical congenital heart disease – utility of routine screening for chromosomal and other extracardiac malformations. Congenit Heart Dis 2012; 7: 145–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Miller, DT, Adam, MP, Aradhya, S, et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010; 86: 749–764.Google Scholar
8. Manning, M, Hudgens, L. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med 2010; 12: 742–745.Google Scholar
9. Wapner, RJ, Martin, CL, Levy, B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175–2184.Google Scholar
10. Reddy, UM, Page, GP, Saade, GR, et al. Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2185–2193.Google Scholar
11. Lu, X-Y, Phung, M, Shaw, CA, et al. Genomic imbalances in neonates with birth defects: High detection rates by using chromosomal microarray analysis. Pediatr 2008; 122: 1310–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Breckpot, J, Thienpont, B, Arens, Y, et al. Challenges of interpreting copy number variation in syndromic and non-syndromic congenital heart defects. Cytogenet Genome Res 2011; 135: 251–259.Google Scholar
13. Erdogan, F, Larsen, LA, Zhang, L, et al. High frequency of submicroscopic genomic aberrations detected by tiling path array comparative genome hybridisation in patients with isolated congenital heart disease. J Med Genet 2008; 45: 704–709.Google Scholar
14. Kearney, HM, Thorland, EC, Brown, KK, Quintero-Rivera, F, South, ST. American College of Medical Genetics standard guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med 2011; 13: 680–685.Google Scholar
15. Genoglyphix Genome Browser. Spokane, WA: Signature Genomic Laboratories; 2007–2011.Google Scholar
16. DECIPHER: Database of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans using Ensembl Resources. Firth HV et al. AmJ Hum Genet 2009; 84: 524–533, doi:dx.doi.org/10/1016/j.ajhg.2009.03.010.Google Scholar
17.Database of Genomic Variants. The Centre for Applied Genomics. Iafrate AJ, Feuk L, Rivera MN, Listewnik ML, Donahoe PK, Qi Y, Scherer SW, Lee C. Detection of large-scale variation in the human genome. Nat Genet 2004; 36: 949–951.Google Scholar
18. Botto, LD, Lin, A, Riehle-Colarusso, T, Malik, S, Correa, A. The National birth defects prevention study. Seeking causes: classifying and evaluating congenital heart defects in etiologic studies. Birth Defects Research Part A 2007; 79: 714–727.Google Scholar
19. Brunetti-Pierri, N, Berg, J, Scaglia, F, et al. Recurrent reciprocal 1q21.1 deletions and duplications associated with microcephaly or macrocephaly and developmental and behavioral abnormalities. Nat Genet 2008; 40: 1466–1471.Google Scholar
20. Ghebranious, N, Giampietro, PF, Wesbrook, FP, Rezkalla, SH. A novel microdeletion at 16p11.2 harbors candidate genes for aortic valve development, seizure disorder, and mild mental retardation. Am J Med Genet A 2007; 143A: 1462–1471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Kobrynski, LJ, Sullivan, KE. Velocardiofacial syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome: the chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndromes. Lancet 2007; 370: 1443–1452.Google Scholar
22. Liu, HX, Oei, PT, Mitchell, EA, McGaughran, JM. Interstitial deletion of 3p22.2–p24.2: the first reported case. J Med Genet 2001; 38: 249–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Hemminki, A, Peltomaki, P, Mecklin, J-P, Jarvinen, H, Salovaara, R, Nystrom-Lahti, M. Loss of the wild type MLH1 gene is a feature of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Nature Genet 1994; 8: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Vasen, HFA, Watson, P, Mecklin, J-P, Lynch, HT, ICG-HNPCC. New clinical criteria for Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer (HNPCC, Lynch Syndrome) Proposed by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Gastroent 1999; 116: 1453–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Jager, AC, Bisgaard, ML, Myrjoj, T, Bernstein, I, Rehfeld, JF, Nielsen, FC. Reduced frequency of extracolonic cancers in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families with monoallelic hMLH1 expression. Am J Hum Genet 1997; 61: 129–138.Google Scholar
26. London, B, Michalec, M, Mehdi, H, et al. Mutation in glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1-like gene (GPD1-L) decreases cardiac Na+ current and causes inherited arrhythmias. Circulation 2007; 116: 2260–2268.Google Scholar
27. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM®. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. MIM Number: 600163: 1/29/2013. URL: http://omim.org/.Google Scholar
28. Ross, LF, Saal, HM, David, KL, Anderson, RR. Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genet Med 2013; 15: 234–245.Google Scholar