Gendiagnostik in der Geburtshilfe – klares Konzept, verständliche ärztliche Beratung

Die Möglichkeiten einer genetischen Diagnostik am ungeborenen Kind differenzieren sich zusehends aus. Damit ist die Gleichsetzung der nichtinvasiven Diagnostik mit NIPT oder NT-Test ebenso veraltet wie die Ansicht, invasive Diagnostik bedeute als Regelfall die Durchführung einer Amniozentese: Die ratsuchende Schwangere hat hier ein Anrecht auf eine aktuelle, angemessene und gleichzeitig verständliche, nichtdirektive, professionelle Beratung. Mithilfe eines strukturierten Konzeptes der Vermittlung fetaler Pathologien sowie der Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer weiterführenden genetischen Diagnostik kann dies im ärztlichen Beratungsgespräch inhaltlich und zeitlich regelmäßig erreicht werden.

• Literatur

• 1 Klusen N, Fließgarten A, Nebling T. Hrsg. Informiert und selbstbestimmt: der mündige Bürger als mündiger Patient. Baden-Baden: Nomos; 2009: 425
• 2 Dieterich A. The modern patient – threat or promise? Physiciansʼ perspectives on patientsʼ changing attributes. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 67: 279-285
• 3 Simon M. Das Gesundheitssystem in Deutschland: eine Einführung in Struktur und Funktionsweise. 5., unveränderte Auflage. Bern: Hogrefe; 2016: 596
• 4 Hürlimann DC, Baumann-Hölzle R. Beratung in der pränatalen Diagnostik: Eine Nationalfondsstudie über Entscheidunterstützungssysteme. Schweiz Ärzteztg 2004; 85: 407-411
• 5 Wewetzer C, Winkler M. Hrsg. Beratung schwangerer Frauen. Interprofessionelle Zusammenarbeit bei Pränataldiagnostik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer; 2013: 207
• 6 Wollmann-Wohlleben V, Nagel-Brotzler A, Kentenich H, Siedentopf F. Hrsg. Psychosomatisches Kompendium der Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe. München: Marseille; 2008: 272
• 7 Schindelhauer-Deutscher HJ, Henn W. Genetische Beratung bei Pränataldiagnostik. medizinische genetik 2014; 26: 374-381
• 8 Loane M, Dolk H, Garne E. et al. Paper 3: EUROCAT data quality indicators for population-based registries of congenital anomalies. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2011; 91 (Suppl. 01) S23-S30
• 9 Loane M, Dolk H, Kelly A. et al. Paper 4: EUROCAT statistical monitoring: identification and investigation of ten year trends of congenital anomalies in Europe. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2011; 91 (Suppl. 01) S31-S43
• 10 Loane MA. The Effect of maternal Age on the Risk and Prevalence of congenital Anomalies in Europe: Design and Analysis of a collaborative Database. Coleraine: University of Ulster; 2014
• 11 Posada de la Paz M, Groft SC. Rare Diseases Epidemiology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010
• 12 Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B. et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175-2184
• 13 Yanikkerem E, Ay S, Ciftçi AY. et al. A survey of the awareness, use and attitudes of women towards Down syndrome screening. J Clin Nurs 2013; 22: 1748-1758
• 14 Belahcen A, Taloubi M, Chala S. et al. Motherʼs awareness and attitudes towards prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Muslim Moroccans. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34: 821-830
• 15 Wagner P, Sonek J, Hoopmann M. et al. First-trimester screening for trisomies 18 and 13, triploidy and Turner syndrome by detailed early anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 446-451
• 16 Alldred SK, Takwoingi Y, Guo B. et al. First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Downʼs syndrome screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (03) CD012600
• 17 Cuckle H, Maymon R. Role of second-trimester ultrasound in screening for Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 241-244
• 18 Aagaard-Tillery KM, Malone FD, Nyberg DA. et al. Role of second-trimester genetic sonography after Down syndrome screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 1189-1196
• 19 Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Antenatal and Postnatal Aspects. Clin Med Insights Pediatr 2016; 10: 67-83
• 20 Hook EB, Mutton DE, Ide R. et al. The natural history of Down syndrome conceptuses diagnosed prenatally that are not electively terminated. Am J Hum Genet 1995; 57: 875-881
• 21 Houlihan OA, OʼDonoghue K. The natural history of pregnancies with a diagnosis of trisomy 18 or trisomy 13; a retrospective case series. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13: 209
• 22 Cavadino A, Morris JK. Revised estimates of the risk of fetal loss following a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or trisomy 18. Am J Med Genet A 2017; 173: 953-958
• 23 Kesler SR. Turner syndrome. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2007; 16: 709-722
• 24 Turriff A, Macnamara E, Levy HP. et al. The Impact of Living with Klinefelter Syndrome: A Qualitative Exploration of Adolescents and Adults. J Genet Couns 2017; 26: 728-737
• 25 Otter M, Schrander-Stumpel CT, Curfs LM. Triple X syndrome: a review of the literature. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18: 265-271
• 26 Salman Guraya S. The associations of nuchal translucency and fetal abnormalities; significance and implications. J Clin Diagn Res 2013; 7: 936-941
• 27 Roozbeh N, Azizi M, Darvish L. Pregnancy Outcome of Abnormal Nuchal Translucency: A Systematic Review. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: QC12-QC16
• 28 Audibert F, De Bie I, Johnson JA. et al. No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG Guideline: Update on Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy, Fetal Anomalies, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017; 39: 805-817
• 29 Gekas J, Langlois S, Ravitsky V. et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues. Appl Clin Genet 2016; 9: 15-26
• 30 Kaimal AJ, Norton ME, Kuppermann M. Prenatal Testing in the Genomic Age: Clinical Outcomes, Quality of Life, and Costs. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126: 737-746
• 31 Grace MR, Hardisty E, Dotters-Katz SK. et al. Cell-Free DNA Screening: Complexities and Challenges of Clinical Implementation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2016; 71: 477-487
• 32 Bromley B, Shipp TD, Lyons J. et al. Detection of fetal structural anomalies in a basic first-trimester screening program for aneuploidy. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33: 1737-1745
• 33 Iliescu D, Tudorache S, Comanescu A. et al. Improved detection rate of structural abnormalities in the first trimester using an extended examination protocol. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 300-309
• 34 Becker R, Wegner RD. Detailed screening for fetal anomalies and cardiac defects at the 11–13-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 613-618
• 35 Nicolaides KH. Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 7-15
• 36 Kagan KO, Valencia C, Livanos P. et al. Tricuspid regurgitation in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 18-22
• 37 Chen CP. Prenatal sonographic features of fetuses in trisomy 13 pregnancies. IV. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 49: 3-12
• 38 Wiechec M, Knafel A, Nocun A. et al. What are the most common first-trimester ultrasound findings in cases of Turner syndrome?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017; 30: 1632-1636
• 39 Sivanathan J, Thilaganathan B. Book: Genetics for obstetricians and gynaecologists: Chapter: Genetic markers on ultrasound scan. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 42: 64-85
• 40 Schmid M, Klaritsch P, Arzt W. et al. Cell-Free DNA Testing for Fetal Chromosomal Anomalies in clinical practice: Austrian-German-Swiss Recommendations for non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT). Ultraschall Med 2015; 36: 507-510
• 41 Carmichael JB, Liu HP, Janik D. et al. Expanded conventional first trimester screening. Prenat Diagn 2017; 37: 802-807
• 42 Poot M. To NIPT or Not to NIPT. Mol Syndromol 2015; 6: 153-155
• 43 Mersy E, Smits LJ, van Winden LA. et al. Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21: systematic review and report of quality and outcomes of diagnostic accuracy studies performed between 1997 and 2012. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19: 318-329
• 44 Jin J, Yang J, Chen Y. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-invasive prenatal DNA testing for trisomy 21: implications for implementation in China. Prenat Diagn 2017; 37: 864-873
• 45 Badeau M, Lindsay C, Blais J. et al. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (11) CD011767
• 46 Skrzypek H, Hui L. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy and single gene disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 42: 26-38
• 47 Zhang B, Lu BY, Yu B. et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal common sex chromosome aneuploidies from maternal blood. J Int Med Res 2017; 45: 621-630
• 48 Flöck A, Tu NC, Rüland A. et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): Europeʼs first multicenter post-market clinical follow-up study validating the quality in clinical routine. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 923-928
• 49 Chitty LS, Hudgins L, Norton ME. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: Cell-free DNA prenatal screening should be used to identify all chromosome abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38: 160-165
• 50 Santorum M, Wright D, Syngelaki A. et al. Accuracy of first-trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 714-720
• 51 Veduta A, Vayna AM, Duta S. et al. The first trimester combined test for aneuploidies – a single center experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31: 2091-2096
• 52 Schwartz S, Kohan M, Pasion R. et al. Clinical experience of laboratory follow-up with noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA and positive microdeletion results in 349 cases. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38: 210-218
• 53 Petersen OB, Vogel I, Ekelund C. et al. Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 265-271
• 54 Hui L. Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy using cell-free DNA – New implications for maternal health. Obstet Med 2016; 9: 148-152
• 55 Yaron Y. The implications of non-invasive prenatal testing failures: a review of an under-discussed phenomenon. Prenat Diagn 2016; 36: 391-396
• 56 Kagan KO, Sonek J, Wagner P. et al. Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 645-651
• 57 Wald NJ, Huttly WJ, Bestwick JP. et al. Prenatal reflex DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18, and 13. Genet Med 2017;
• 58 Wilson RD, Poon LC, Ghidini A. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: is there still a value in a nuchal translucency screening ultrasound in conjunction with maternal plasma non-invasive cell-free DNA testing?. Prenat Diagn 2016; 36: 20-24
• 59 Breman A, Patel A. Preparation of chorionic villus samples for metaphase chromosome analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis. Curr Protoc Hum Genet 2012; Chapter 8: Unit8.3
• 60 Odibo AO, Dicke JM, Gray DL. et al. Evaluating the rate and risk factors for fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 813-819
• 61 Wah YM, Leung TY, Cheng YKY. et al. Procedure-Related Fetal Loss following Chorionic Villus Sampling after First-Trimester Aneuploidy Screening. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017; 41: 184-190
• 62 Akolekar R, Bower S, Flack N. et al. Prediction of miscarriage and stillbirth at 11–13 weeks and the contribution of chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 38-45
• 63 Wulff CB, Gerds TA, Rode L. et al. Risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first-trimester screening for Down syndrome: a national cohort of 147,987 singleton pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 38-44
• 64 Carlin AJ, Alfirevic Z. Techniques for chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: a survey of practice in specialist UK centres. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 914-919
• 65 Ghi T, Sotiriadis A, Calda P. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 256-268
• 66 Norton ME, Rink BD. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40: 56-66
• 67 Malvestiti F, Agrati C, Grimi B. et al. Interpreting mosaicism in chorionic villi: results of a monocentric series of 1001 mosaics in chorionic villi with follow-up amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35: 1117-1127
• 68 Cruz-Lemini M, Parra-Saavedra M, Borobio V. et al. How to perform an amniocentesis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44: 727-731
• 69 Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 1-7
• 70 Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M. et al. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1: 1287-1293
• 71 Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM. et al. Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: a single centerʼs 16-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 589-595
• 72 Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarell G. et al. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 16-26
• 73 Özcan HÇ, Uğur MG, Sucu S. et al. Summary of 2185 prenatal invasive procedures in a single center: A retrospective analysis. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 14: 114-120
• 74 Leung WC, Lau ET, Lao TT. et al. Rapid aneuploidy screening (FISH or QF-PCR): the changing scene in prenatal diagnosis?. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2004; 4: 333-337
• 75 Berry SM, Stone J, Norton ME. et al. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 170-180
• 76 Deka D, Dadhwal V, Roy KK. et al. Indications of 1342 fetal cord blood sampling procedures performed as an integral part of high risk pregnancy care. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2012; 62: 20-24
• 77 Antsaklis A, Daskalakis G, Papantoniou N. et al. Fetal blood sampling–indication-related losses. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 934-940
• 78 Klinger K, Landes G, Shook D. et al. Rapid detection of chromosome aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Am J Hum Genet 1992; 51: 55-65
• 79 Choolani M, Ho SS, Razvi K. et al. FastFISH: technique for ultrarapid fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes yielding results within 2 h of amniocentesis. Mol Hum Reprod 2007; 13: 355-359
• 80 Chen CP, Huang HK, Su YN. et al. Trisomy 7 mosaicism at amniocentesis: interphase FISH, QF-PCR, and aCGH analyses on uncultured amniocytes for rapid distinguishing of true mosaicism from pseudomosaicism. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 51: 77-82
• 81 Mann K, Ogilvie CM. QF-PCR: application, overview and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32: 309-314
• 82 Willis AS, van den Veyver I, Eng CM. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32: 315-320
• 83 Filges I, Kang A, Klug V. et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis of first trimester pregnancies at high risk for chromosomal anomalies. Mol Cytogenet 2012; 5: 38
• 84 Boormans EM, Birnie E, Wildschut HI. et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the M.A.K.E. study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008; 8: 18
• 85 Boormans EM, Birnie E, Oepkes D. et al. Comparison of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (2 Pt 1): 297-303
• 86 Kjaergaard S, Sundberg K, Jørgensen FS. et al. Diagnostic yield by supplementing prenatal metaphase karyotyping with MLPA for microdeletion syndromes and subtelomere imbalances. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30: 995-999
• 87 Rooryck C, Toutain J, Cailley D. et al. Prenatal diagnosis using array-CGH: a French experience. Eur J Med Genet 2013; 56: 341-345
• 88 Giabicani É, Brioude F, Le Bouc Y. et al. Imprinted disorders and growth. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2017; 78: 112-113
• 89 Camunas-Soler J, Lee H, Hudgins L. et al. Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Single-Gene Disorders by Use of Droplet Digital PCR. Clin Chem 2018; 64: 336-345
• 90 Carss KJ, Hillman SC, Parthiban V. et al. Exome sequencing improves genetic diagnosis of structural fetal abnormalities revealed by ultrasound. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23: 3269-3277
• 91 Deng L, Cheung SW, Schmitt ES. et al. Targeted gene panel sequencing prenatally detects two novel mutations of DYNC2H1 in a fetus with increased biparietal diameter and polyhydramnios. Birth Defects Res 2018; 110: 364-371