Validation and implementation of array comparative genomic hybridisation as a first line test in place of postnatal karyotyping for genome imbalance.
BACKGROUND
Several studies have demonstrated that array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) for genome-wide imbalance provides a substantial increase in diagnostic yield for patients traditionally referred for karyotyping by G-banded chromosome analysis. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of and strategies for, the use of array CGH in place of karyotyping for genome imbalance, and to report on the results of the implementation of this approach.


RESULTS
Following a validation period, an oligoarray platform was chosen. In order to minimise costs and increase efficiency, a patient/patient hybridisation strategy was used, and analysis criteria were set to optimise detection of pathogenic imbalance. A customised database application with direct links to a number of online resources was developed to allow efficient management and tracking of patient samples and facilitate interpretation of results. Following introduction into our routine diagnostic service for patients with suspected genome imbalance, array CGH as a follow-on test for patients with normal karyotypes (n = 1245) and as a first-line test (n = 1169) gave imbalance detection rates of 26% and 22% respectively (excluding common, benign variants). At least 89% of the abnormalities detected by first line testing would not have been detected by standard karyotype analysis. The average reporting time for first-line tests was 25 days from receipt of sample.


CONCLUSIONS
Array CGH can be used in a diagnostic service setting in place of G-banded chromosome analysis, providing a more comprehensive and objective test for patients with suspected genome imbalance. The increase in consumable costs can be minimised by employing appropriate hybridisation strategies; the use of robotics and a customised database application to process multiple samples reduces staffing costs and streamlines analysis, interpretation and reporting of results. Array CGH provides a substantially higher diagnostic yield than G-banded chromosome analysis, thereby alleviating the burden of further clinical investigations.
Ahn
Joo Wook
JW
Cytogenetics Department, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 9RT, UK. caroline.ogilvie@genetics.kcl.ac.uk.
Mann
Kathy
K
Walsh
Sally
S
Shehab
Marwa
M
Hoang
Sarah
S
Docherty
Zoe
Z
Mohammed
Shehla
S
Mackie Ogilvie
Caroline
C
Trends Genet. 1991 May;7(5):149-54
2068787
BMC Genomics. 2008 Sep 10;9:407
18783624
Am J Med Genet A. 2007 Nov 1;143A(21):2523-33
17910064
Genet Med. 2009 Mar;11(3):139-46
19367186
Nat Genet. 2006 Sep;38(9):1038-42
16906162
Semin Cancer Biol. 1993 Feb;4(1):41-6
8448377
Hum Mutat. 2007 Nov;28(11):1124-32
17621639
J Med Genet. 2010 Mar;47(3):195-203
19755429
Genet Med. 2008 Apr;10(4):262-6
18414209
Genomic Med. 2007;1(1-2):35-45
18923927
BMC Med Genet. 2007 Mar 05;8:9
17338807
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jan;1151:157-66
19154522
PLoS One. 2007 Mar 28;2(3):e327
17389918
Clin Chem. 2007 Dec;53(12):2051-9
17901113
Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Oct;77(4):606-16
16175506
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jun 15;30(12):e57
12060695
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1997 Dec;20(4):399-407
9408757
Eur J Med Genet. 2010 Mar-Apr;53(2):66-75
19878743
BMC Bioinformatics. 2009 Nov 19;10:380
19925645
Am J Med Genet A. 2003 Aug 1;120A(4):483-9
12884426
J Med Genet. 2006 Aug;43(8):625-33
16490798
J Histochem Cytochem. 2005 Mar;53(3):285-8
15750003
Nat Genet. 1998 Oct;20(2):207-11
9771718
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2007 Nov 15;145C(4):335-45
17910076
Nat Genet. 2004 Sep;36(9):949-51
15286789