Cytogenetics Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Article

    Frequency of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Products of Conception

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2017;39(3):110-114

    Summary

    Original Article

    Frequency of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Products of Conception

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2017;39(3):110-114

    DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1600521

    Views4

    Abstract

    Purpose

    To describe the frequencies of chromosomal abnormalities found in abortion material, and to observe its correlation to maternal age.

    Methods

    A retrospective study was conducted based on data obtained from the databank of a medical genetics laboratory in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. A total of 884 results from products of conception analysis were included, 204 of which were analyzed by cytogenetics, and 680bymolecular biology basedon quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR). The frequency of individual chromosomal aberrations and the relationship between the presence of anomalies and maternal age were also evaluated.

    Results

    The conventional cytogenetics technique was able to detect 52% of normal and 48% of abnormal results in the analyzed material. Quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction revealed 60% of normal and 40% of abnormal results from the samples evaluated by this method. The presence of trisomy 15 was detected only by cytogenetics, as it was not included in the QF-PCR routine investigation in the laboratory. A significant increase in abnormal results was observed among women aged 35 years or older compared with younger women (p = 0.02).

    Conclusion

    Chromosomal aberrations are still a major cause of spontaneous abortion, and the conventional cytogenetics technique is efficient for miscarriage material analysis, but molecular methods such as QF-PCR are adequate complementary strategies to detect the major chromosomal anomalies, leading to technical reports with reliable results.

    See more
    Frequency of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Products of Conception
  • Artigos Originais

    Cytogenetic and molecular evaluation of spontaneous abortion samples

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(9):554-560

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Cytogenetic and molecular evaluation of spontaneous abortion samples

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(9):554-560

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000900009

    Views10

    PURPOSE: to evaluate the performance of cytogenetic analysis, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in the study of numerical chromosomal anomalies and in fetal sex determination of spontaneous abortion material. METHODS: cytogenetic analysis was performed on 219 spontaneous abortion specimens. Forty of these cases were also submitted to fetal sex determination using nested-PCR. Thirty-two of these cases were selected due to failed cytogenetic culture and the other eight were selected randomly. Twenty samples were submitted to the FISH technique, using probes for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Thirteen of these samples were selected due to failed cytogenetic culture and the other seven were randomly selected. The success rates of each technique were compared using the chi2 test and an established p<0.05 level of significance. The results of samples submitted to more than one test were evaluated for accuracy, using the cytogenetic result as the gold standard. RESULTS: cytogenetic analysis was successful in 84.9% of the samples and in 51.1% of them the results were abnormal: 65.2% trisomy, 17.9% triploidy, 9.4% tetraploidy, 4.2% chromosome X monosomy, and 1.1% each for double trisomy, tetrasomy and structural abnormality. The most frequent trisomy was that of chromosome 16 (39%). The success rate of FISH and PCR techniques (90%) did nod differ significantly from the cytogenetic analysis. In all cases submitted to more than one test, the results were identical to those obtained through cytogenetic analysis. Samples that failed to grow on cytogenetic test and that were submitted to other techniques of molecular biology had a success rate of 87.5 and 84.6% for PCR and FISH, respectively. CONCLUSION: cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions had a high success rate and chromosomal anomalies were identified in over half of the cases. Molecular biology techniques (PCR and FISH) complemented the cytogenetic study and proved to be reliable in the detection of numerical chromosomal anomalies and in fetal sex determination.

    See more
    Cytogenetic and molecular evaluation of spontaneous abortion samples

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Arigos Originais
Article
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE