References
  1. Evans MI, Wapner RJ, Berkowitz RL. Noninvasive prenatal screening or advanced diagnostic testing:caveat emptor[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016;215:298-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.029.
  2. Shearer BM, Thorland EC, Carlson AW, et al. Reflex fluorescent in situ hybridization testing for unsuccessful product of conception cultures: a retrospective analysis of 5555 samples attempted by conventional cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization[J]. Genet Med. 2011;13:545-552.
  3. Hayes JL, Tzika A, Thygesen H, et a1. Diagnosis of copy number variation by Illumina next generation sequencing is comparable in performance to oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization[J]. Genomics, 2013;102:174-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2013.04.006.Dong Z, Zhang J, Hu P, et a1. Low-pass whole-genome sequencing in clinical cytogenetics: a validated approach[J]. Genet Med, 2016;18:940-948. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.199.
  4. Shen J, Wu W, Gao C, et al. Chromosomal copy number analysis on chorionic villus samples from early spontaneous miscarriages by high throughput genetic technology[J]. Mol Cytogenet. 2016;9:7. DOI: 10.1186/s13039-015-0210-z.
  5. Tattini L, D’ Aurizio R, Magi A. Detection of genomic structural variants from next-generation sequencing data[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2015;3:92. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00092.
  6. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology[J]. Genet Med 2015;17:405-24. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30.
  7. Wang J, Chen L, Zhou C, et a1. Prospective chromosome analysis of 3429 amniocentesis samples in China using copy number variation sequencing[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2018;1:287.e1-287.e18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.030.
  8. Wang H, Dong Z, Zhang R, et al. Low-pass Genome Sequencing Versus Chromosomal Microarray Analysis: Implementation in Prenatal Diagnosis[J]. Genet Med, 2020;22:500-510. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0634-7.
  9. Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, et al. Technical Standards for the Interpretation and Reporting of Constitutional Copy-Number Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen)[J]. 2020;22: 245-257. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0686-8.
  10. Rosenfeld JA, Tucker ME, Escobar LF, et al. Diagnostic utility of microarray testing in pregnancy loss[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:478-86. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14866.
  11. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal Microarray Versus Karyotyping for Prenatal Diagnosis[J]. 2012;367:2175-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203382.FiguresFIGURE 1 The comparison of abnormal detection rates of two detection methods for all cases and groups. Abbreviations: AR-NIPS: abnormal results on noninvasive prenatal screening, AFU: abnormal fetal ultrasound, APC: abnormal parental chromosome, AMA: advanced maternal age, AR-DSS: abnormal result on down’s syndrome screening, APH: adverse pregnancy history, VT: voluntary testing.TablesTABLE 1 The summary and comparison of all karyotyping and CNV-seq results.