A 343 Italian cohort of patients analysed with array‐comparative genomic hybridization: unsolved problems and genetic counselling difficulties.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	A 343 Italian cohort of patients analysed with array‐comparative genomic hybridization: unsolved problems and genetic counselling difficulties.
Authors:	Palka Bayard de Volo, C., Alfonsi, M., Morizio, E., Guaciali‐Franchi, P., Mohn, A., Chiarelli, F.
Source:	Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Sep2021, Vol. 65 Issue 9, p863-869. 7p. 1 Diagram, 5 Charts.
Subjects:	Diagnosis of autism, Diagnosis of epilepsy, Genetic testing, Retrospective studies, Multiple human abnormalities, Chromosome abnormalities, Descriptive statistics, People with intellectual disabilities, Cytogenetics, Oligonucleotide arrays, Phenotypes, Longitudinal method
Geographic Terms:	Italy
Abstract:	Background: The recent introduction of microarrays for genetic analyses has allowed higher etiological diagnostic rates in patient with intellectual disability (ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), epilepsy and multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), because of its resolution. This approach still results of high complexity and some limitations have been reported. In fact, it discloses several variants of unknown significance (VOUS) or incidental findings. In all cases, a massive amount of data is generated, because of this, the analysis and the interpretation is very difficult and often without a definitive conclusion. Method: We analysed an Italian cohort of 343 patients with ID, MCA and ASD by array‐comparative genomic hybridization. The purpose of this work was to consider the proportion of the chromosomal abnormalities in such cohort and to assess the distribution of the different type of the chromosomal abnormalities concerning their pathogenic significance, their origin and their correlation to these clinical phenotypes. Results: Array‐comparative genomic hybridization analysis revealed 76 positive results. Abnormalities were detected in 27.8% of patients with ID, 11.1% with ASD, 10.7% with epilepsy and 19.4% with multiple congenital anomalies. The anomalies were classified in three major groups: group 1 (27 patients) with pathogenic alterations (P group); group 2 (34 patients) with VOUS potentially pathogenic (PP group); and group 3 (13 patients) with VOUS potentially benign (PB group). As expected, comparing the diagnostic groups, we observed a greater number of deletions in the P group and that all the abnormalities of the PB group were inherited. Conclusions: Our retrospective study resulted in confirming the high detection rate of microarrays. CNV classification remains a complex procedure. The difficulty in CNV classification points out the importance of the patient selection, helping the interpretation of the molecular cytogenetic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Background: The recent introduction of microarrays for genetic analyses has allowed higher etiological diagnostic rates in patient with intellectual disability (ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), epilepsy and multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), because of its resolution. This approach still results of high complexity and some limitations have been reported. In fact, it discloses several variants of unknown significance (VOUS) or incidental findings. In all cases, a massive amount of data is generated, because of this, the analysis and the interpretation is very difficult and often without a definitive conclusion. Method: We analysed an Italian cohort of 343 patients with ID, MCA and ASD by array‐comparative genomic hybridization. The purpose of this work was to consider the proportion of the chromosomal abnormalities in such cohort and to assess the distribution of the different type of the chromosomal abnormalities concerning their pathogenic significance, their origin and their correlation to these clinical phenotypes. Results: Array‐comparative genomic hybridization analysis revealed 76 positive results. Abnormalities were detected in 27.8% of patients with ID, 11.1% with ASD, 10.7% with epilepsy and 19.4% with multiple congenital anomalies. The anomalies were classified in three major groups: group 1 (27 patients) with pathogenic alterations (P group); group 2 (34 patients) with VOUS potentially pathogenic (PP group); and group 3 (13 patients) with VOUS potentially benign (PB group). As expected, comparing the diagnostic groups, we observed a greater number of deletions in the P group and that all the abnormalities of the PB group were inherited. Conclusions: Our retrospective study resulted in confirming the high detection rate of microarrays. CNV classification remains a complex procedure. The difficulty in CNV classification points out the importance of the patient selection, helping the interpretation of the molecular cytogenetic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	09642633
DOI:	10.1111/jir.12867