Minor Anomalies: Can They Predict Specific Major Defects? A Study Based on 23 Major and 14 Minor Anomalies in Over 25,000 Newborns with Birth Defects

Abstract

Background Minor anomalies (mAs) are morphological features with little clinical relevance that have been mentioned as possible predictors of major defects (MDs).

Objectives To identify the preferential associations between selected MDs and mAs and to establish if mAs can serve as predictors for specific MDs.

Study Design Information of newborns with birth defects was obtained from the ECLAMC (Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Malformations) database. The sample consisted of 27,247 live- and stillborn newborns with multiple malformations that included at least one of the selected MDs or mAs. The odds ratio and predictive values were calculated for significant associations, and concurrence rates in first degree relatives.

Results  A total of 33 significant minor–major associations were identified. Single umbilical artery (SUA) and preauricular tags were the most frequent mAs; the former was associated with 10 MDs, the latter only with microtia. The highest positive predictive value was shown by SUA for anal atresia. Newborns with preauricular tags had significantly more relatives with microtia than expected.

Conclusions No new relevant associations between MDs and mAs were identified and few mAs seem to serve as predictors for specific MDs in the same newborn. However, preauricular tags can predict the occurrence of microtia in other family members.

Keywords

epidemiology - minor anomalies - predictors - birth defects - associations

• References

• 1 Marden PM, Smith DW, McDonald MJ. Congenital Anomalies in the newborn infant, including minor variations. A study of 4,412 babies by surface examination for anomalies and buccal smear for sex chromatin. J Pediatr 1964; 64: 357-371
• 2 Merks JH, van Karnebeek CD, Caron HN, Hennekam RC. Phenotypic abnormalities: terminology and classification. Am J Med Genet A 2003; 123A (3) 211-230
• 3 Méhes K, Mestyán J, Knoch V, Vincellér M. Minor malformations in the neonate. Helv Paediatr Acta 1973; 28 (5) 477-483
• 4 Leppig KA, Werler MM, Cann CI, Cook CA, Holmes LB. Predictive value of minor anomalies. I. Association with major malformations. J Pediatr 1987; 110 (4) 531-537
• 5 Holmes LB, Kleiner BC, Leppig KA, Cann CI, Muñoz A, Polk BF. Predictive value of minor anomalies: II. Use in cohort studies to identify teratogens. Teratology 1987; 36 (3) 291-297
• 6 Waldrop MF, Bell RQ, McLaughlin B, Halverson Jr CF. Newborn minor physical anomalies predict short attention span, peer aggression, and impulsivity at age 3. Science 1978; 199 (4328) 563-565
• 7 Mu SC, Lin CH, Chen YL, Sung TC, Bai CH, Jow GM. The perinatal outcomes of asymptomatic isolated single umbilical artery in full-term neonates. Pediatr Neonatol 2008; 49 (6) 230-233
• 8 Meggyessy V, Méhes K. Association of supernumerary nipples with renal anomalies. J Pediatr 1987; 111 (3) 412-413
• 9 Castilla EE, Orioli IM. ECLAMC: the Latin-American collaborative study of congenital malformations. Community Genet 2004; 7 (2-3) 76-94
• 10 Opitz JM. Heterogeneity and minor anomalies. Am J Med Genet 2000; 91 (4) 254-255
• 11 Opitz JM. Invited editorial comment: study of minor anomalies in childhood malignancy. Eur J Pediatr 1985; 144: 252-254
• 12 Tsai FJ, Tsai CH, Peng CT, Wu JY, Lien CH, Wang TR. Different race, different face: minor anomalies in Chinese newborn infants. Acta Paediatr 1999; 88 (3) 323-326
• 13 Rinehart BK, Terrone DA, Taylor CW, Isler CM, Larmon JE, Roberts WE. Single umbilical artery is associated with an increased incidence of structural and chromosomal anomalies and growth restriction. Am J Perinatol 2000; 17 (5) 229-232
• 14 Pierce BT, Dance VD, Wagner RK, Apodaca CC, Nielsen PE, Calhoun BC. Perinatal outcome following fetal single umbilical artery diagnosis. J Matern Fetal Med 2001; 10 (1) 59-63
• 15 Källén K, Robert E, Castilla EE, Mastroiacovo P, Källén B. Relation between oculo-auriculo-vertebral (OAV) dysplasia and three other non-random associations of malformations (VATER, CHARGE, and OEIS). Am J Med Genet A 2004; 127A (1) 26-34
• 16 Haratz K, Vinkler C, Lev D, Schreiber L, Malinger G. Hemifacial microsomia with spinal and rib anomalies: prenatal diagnosis and postmortem confirmation using 3-D computed tomography reconstruction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011; 30 (4) 309-313
• 17 Martínez-Frías ML, Bermejo E, Rodríguez-Pinilla E, Prieto D. ECEMC Working Group. Does single umbilical artery (SUA) predict any type of congenital defect? Clinical-epidemiological analysis of a large consecutive series of malformed infants. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146A (1) 15-25
• 18 Keogh IJ, Troulis MJ, Monroy AA, Eavey RD, Kaban LB. Isolated microtia as a marker for unsuspected hemifacial microsomia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 133 (10) 997-1001
• 19 Gornall AS, Kurinczuk JJ, Konje JC. Antenatal detection of a single umbilical artery: does it matter?. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23 (2) 117-123
• 20 Klockars T, Suutarla S, Kentala E, Ala-Mello S, Rautio J. Inheritance of microtia in the Finnish population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 71 (11) 1783-1788
• 21 Alasti F, Van Camp G. Genetics of microtia and associated syndromes. J Med Genet 2009; 46 (6) 361-369