Scholarlink

Background <p>Optical genome mapping (OGM) is an emerging cytogenetic method for concurrently detecting structural variants (SVs) and copy number variants (CNVs). However, its clinical application in prenatal diagnosis remains underexplored.</p> Methods <p>This study retrospectively evaluated the clinical validity of OGM in prenatal diagnosis by comparing with two routine genetic testing methods: karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Both positive and negative cases detected by routine genetic methods were enrolled to evaluate the technical concordance of OGM and its capability to improve diagnostic rate in negative cases. The exclusion criteria were balanced centromeric translocations, mosaic cases with cellular fractions &lt; 20%, and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) &lt; 25&#xa0;Mb. All samples subjected to OGM testing were anonymized and analyzed blindly. The results from OGM were compared with those from routine genetic testing, and statistical analyses were performed to assess technical concordance and diagnostic rate.</p> Results <p>Of 217 samples (166 positive samples and 51 negative samples for routine genetic testing), all were successfully tested with OGM, including 2 umbilical cord blood samples, 4 chorionic villi samples, and 211 cultured amniotic fluid samples. Of the 207 reportable chromosomal aberrations from 166 positive samples, the blinded concordance between OGM and CMA, karyotyping, and combination of karyotyping plus CMA was 97.81%, 96.36%, and 97.10%, respectively. OGM missed six aberrations initially, including one LOH, two marker chromosomes, and three microdeletions. However, after reanalysis, its concordance improved to 100% with CMA and 99.03% with karyotyping plus CMA. OGM also diagnosed one additional case of a 3-kb deletion in 51 negative samples, improving the diagnostic rate by 1.96%. Moreover, OGM reclassified the pathogenicity of two microdeletions from pathogenic to uncertain significance in 2 positive cases. Furthermore, OGM clarified the diagnosis suspected by routine genetic testing and improved diagnostic accuracy in some cases.</p> Conclusion <p>As far as we know, this is the largest retrospective study on OGM in prenatal diagnosis, and it includes a broad range of sample types. The results showed that OGM exhibits high concordance among the tested methods and increases the diagnostic rate. Thus, OGM has the potential to become a first-line technique for prenatal diagnosis in the future.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation of the efficacy of optical genome mapping in prenatal diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月20日

查看全文
  • Kaili Yin,
  • Yan Lü,
  • Hanzhe Zhang,
  • Mengmeng Li,
  • Jiazhen Chang,
  • Xueting Yang,
  • Qingwei Qi,
  • Xiya Zhou,
  • Jiangshan Guo,
  • Yaru Wang,
  • Cuixia Wang,
  • Wei Li,
  • Na Hao,
  • Yulin Jiang

摘要

Background

Optical genome mapping (OGM) is an emerging cytogenetic method for concurrently detecting structural variants (SVs) and copy number variants (CNVs). However, its clinical application in prenatal diagnosis remains underexplored.

Methods

This study retrospectively evaluated the clinical validity of OGM in prenatal diagnosis by comparing with two routine genetic testing methods: karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Both positive and negative cases detected by routine genetic methods were enrolled to evaluate the technical concordance of OGM and its capability to improve diagnostic rate in negative cases. The exclusion criteria were balanced centromeric translocations, mosaic cases with cellular fractions < 20%, and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) < 25 Mb. All samples subjected to OGM testing were anonymized and analyzed blindly. The results from OGM were compared with those from routine genetic testing, and statistical analyses were performed to assess technical concordance and diagnostic rate.

Results

Of 217 samples (166 positive samples and 51 negative samples for routine genetic testing), all were successfully tested with OGM, including 2 umbilical cord blood samples, 4 chorionic villi samples, and 211 cultured amniotic fluid samples. Of the 207 reportable chromosomal aberrations from 166 positive samples, the blinded concordance between OGM and CMA, karyotyping, and combination of karyotyping plus CMA was 97.81%, 96.36%, and 97.10%, respectively. OGM missed six aberrations initially, including one LOH, two marker chromosomes, and three microdeletions. However, after reanalysis, its concordance improved to 100% with CMA and 99.03% with karyotyping plus CMA. OGM also diagnosed one additional case of a 3-kb deletion in 51 negative samples, improving the diagnostic rate by 1.96%. Moreover, OGM reclassified the pathogenicity of two microdeletions from pathogenic to uncertain significance in 2 positive cases. Furthermore, OGM clarified the diagnosis suspected by routine genetic testing and improved diagnostic accuracy in some cases.

Conclusion

As far as we know, this is the largest retrospective study on OGM in prenatal diagnosis, and it includes a broad range of sample types. The results showed that OGM exhibits high concordance among the tested methods and increases the diagnostic rate. Thus, OGM has the potential to become a first-line technique for prenatal diagnosis in the future.