Skip to content

Evaluation of the Relevance of Comparative Genomic Hybridization in Prenatal Diagnosis

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

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04814563
Enrollment
830
Registered
2021-03-24
Start date
2021-03-30
Completion date
2021-04-30
Last updated
2021-04-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Comparative Genomic Hybridization

Keywords

Prenatal diagnosis, Ultrasound sign

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.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Central Hospital, Nancy, France
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Healthy volunteers
No

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

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
CGH-array abnormalitybaselineAn anomaly will be detected at CGH-array if its size is greater than or equal to 500 Kb. Size of these anomalies will be considered in a binary manner: \< 10 Mb (i.e. not visible on karyotype) and ≥ 10 Mb (i.e. visible on karyotype)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Type of ultrasound call signbaselineThe ultrasound signs will be defined by the ultrasound technician thanks to the recommended classification
Genotype-phenotype concordancebaselineThe genotype-phenotype concordance is defined by the cytogeneticist who delivers the results, according to the current scientific knowledge described in the literature
Particular gravitybaselineThe particular gravity (Yes/No) of the ultrasound sign is defined after consultation between the various health professionals gathered at the multidisciplinary pre-natal diagnosis committee (gynaecologist, paediatrician, geneticist, radiologist, histopathologists, surgeons, etc.).

Countries

France

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026