Evidence Hub

Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in 2466 fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers: a prospective cohort study

Ting Hu, Tian Tian, Zhu Zhang, Jia-Min Wang, Rui Hu, Li-Ke Xiao, Hong-Mei Zhu, Yi Lai et al.

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020

80 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Soft markers are nonspecific findings detected by ultrasonography during the second trimester, that are often transient and nonpathological but may imply an increased risk for underlying fetal aneuploidy. However, large-scale prospectively stratified studies focusing on the prevalence of chromosomal aberrations, including copy number variants, in fetuses with different types of isolated soft markers have rarely been published in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes in fetuses with isolated soft markers by single nucleotide polymorphism array with long-term follow-up and to propose a diagnostic algorithm based on specific types of soft markers.

STUDY DESIGN

The prevalence of fetal isolated soft markers was 13.2% (7869/59,503). A total of 2466 fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers during the second trimester, that were subjected to single nucleotide polymorphism array with long-term follow-up, were selected in this prospective study over a 5-year period. Soft markers were categorized into 12 groups. The demographic profile and chromosomal microarray analysis detection results were analyzed and compared between different groups.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of chromosomal aberrations in fetuses with soft markers was 4.3% (107/2466), which comprised 40.2% with numerical chromosomal abnormalities, 48.6% with pathogenic copy number variants, and 11.2% with likely pathogenic copy number variants. The incidence of numerical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free