Prenatal DiagnosisNCT03955588
Replacement of Cytogenetics by aCGH in Prenatal Diagnosis
An observational study of Prenatal Diagnosis, run by The University of Hong Kong.
Trial summary
Conventional cytogenetics has been the gold standard for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis. It allows a microscopic examination for any structural abnormalities of chromosome with a turn-around time of 2 to 3 weeks and it is also labour intensive. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Prenatal Diagnosis
- What is being tested?
- aCGH
- How many people
- 51 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 21 Nov 2014to 28 Feb 2016
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: All women who require invasive prenatal diagnosis will be recruited.
Who may be able to join
- All pregnant women requiring chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis at Tsan Yuk Hospital
Who cannot join
- Patients who cannot read or understand Chinese or English
About this study
Official title: Demonstration Trial on Replacement of Cytogenetics by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) in Prenatal Diagnosis
Conventional cytogenetics has been the gold standard for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis. It allows a microscopic examination for any structural abnormalities of chromosome with a turn-around time of 2 to 3 weeks and it is also labour intensive. Array comparative genome hybridisation (aCGH) provides a platform for a higher resolution analysis of chromosomal aberrations in a shorter period of time. The effectiveness of its application in prenatal diagnosis has been examined. The main clinical limitation lies on the difficult interpretation of certain copy number variants (CNV). Our previous study has demonstrated an increase diagnostic yield of 3.2% using aCGH over conventional cytogenetics in the first-tier test study and by 6% as a further test in a cohort of fetuses with ultrasound abnormality and normal karyotype findings. This finding were consistent with the overall reported of 5.2% to 10% increased detection rate by other studies. Various authorities have also approved the use of aCGH as an adjunct diagnostic tool in prenatal cases with fetal ultrasound abnormalities.
The presence study aims to demonstrate the clinical acceptability on the use of aCGH to replace cytogenetics in prenatal diagnosis. For patients requiring invasive prenatal diagnosis by chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, they will be offered the options of having either conventional cytogenetics or aCGH. A standard unbiased counselling procedure will be performed by well trained midwives. For patients opting for conventional cytogenetics, the current procedure of karyotyping will be performed. For those opting for aCGH, a quantitative fluorescent Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) will be performed first to exclude common aneuploidies and triploidies. aCGH will be arranged for those with normal PCR results and conventional cytogenetics will be reserved for visualization of clinically significant CNVs.
All patients will be asked to complete the same questionnaire that has been adopted for the study on "Questionnaire survey on Knowledge and Acceptance on Application of whole genome array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) in Prenatal Diagnosis".
Read the detailed description
Conventional cytogenetics has been the gold standard for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis. It allows a microscopic examination for any structural abnormalities of chromosome with a turn-around time of 2 to 3 weeks and it is also labour intensive. Array comparative genome hybridisation (aCGH) provides a platform for a higher resolution analysis of chromosomal aberrations in a shorter period of time. The effectiveness of its application in prenatal diagnosis has been examined (Callaway, Shaffer, Chitty, Rosenfeld, \& Crolla, 2013). The main clinical limitation lies on the difficult interpretation of certain copy number variants (CNV). Our previous study has demonstrated an increase diagnostic yield of 3.2% using aCGH over conventional cytogenetics in the first-tier test study and by 6% as a further test in a cohort of fetuses with ultrasound abnormality and normal karyotype findings (Kan et al., 2014). This finding were consistent with the overall reported of 5.2% to 10% increased detection rate by other studies (de Wit et al., 2014; Hillman et al., 2013; Hillman et al., 2011). Various authorities have also approved the use of aCGH as an adjunct diagnostic tool in prenatal cases with fetal ultrasound abnormalities (American College of Obstetricians \& Gynecologists, 2013; Novelli et al., 2012).
- Conditions
- Prenatal Diagnosis
- Being tested
- aCGH
- Keywords
- Cytogenetics, aCGH, Prenatal Diagnosis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
aCGHDiagnostic test
Also called conventional cytogenetics
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Women undergoing invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures | For women requiring invasive prenatal diagnosis by chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, they will be offered the options of having either conventional cytogenetics or aCGH. Receives: Diagnostic Test: aCGH |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The preference of aCGH to conventional cytogenetics
Proportion of subjects choosing aCGH
Measured: At the time of recruitment
Secondary outcomes (1)
Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromosomal microarray as primary test for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong
Laboratory workflow and cost of replacing conventional karyotype by aCGH are compared. The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the diagnostic rate (number of diagnoses made/ sample size) as a measure of outcome effectiveness.
Measured: After completion of the aCGH for the last recruited subject in 2016
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 May 2019
- Study start21 Nov 2014
- Primary completion28 Feb 2016
- Study completion28 Feb 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Prenatal DiagnosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Hong KongThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 51 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Hui Pui-Wah, The University of Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03955588
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UW 14-465
- Status last verified
- May 2019
- First submitted
- 7 May 2019
- Last updated
- 20 May 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;122(6):1374-7. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000438962.16108.d1.
PubMed 24264715Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2013 Dec;33(12):1119-23. doi: 10.1002/pd.4209. Epub 2013 Sep 8.
PubMed 23983223de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LC, Van Opstal D, Galjaard RJ, Go AT. Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;43(2):139-46. doi: 10.1002/uog.12575.
PubMed 23897843Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, Togneri FS, James N, Maher EJ, Meller CH, Williams D, Wapner RJ, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):610-20. doi: 10.1002/uog.12464. Epub 2013 May 7.
PubMed 23512800Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;37(1):6-14. doi: 10.1002/uog.7754.
PubMed 20658510Kan AS, Lau ET, Tang WF, Chan SS, Ding SC, Chan KY, Lee CP, Hui PW, Chung BH, Leung KY, Ma T, Leung WC, Tang MH. Whole-genome array CGH evaluation for replacing prenatal karyotyping in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 5;9(2):e87988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087988. eCollection 2014.
PubMed 24505343Novelli A, Grati FR, Ballarati L, Bernardini L, Bizzoco D, Camurri L, Casalone R, Cardarelli L, Cavalli P, Ciccone R, Clementi M, Dalpra L, Gentile M, Gelli G, Grammatico P, Malacarne M, Nardone AM, Pecile V, Simoni G, Zuffardi O, Giardino D. Microarray application in prenatal diagnosis: a position statement from the cytogenetics working group of the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU), November 2011. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Apr;39(4):384-8. doi: 10.1002/uog.11092.
PubMed 22262341
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 May 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Demonstration Trial on Replacement of Cytogenetics by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) in Prenatal Diagnosis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03955588
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UW 14-465
- Conditions
- Prenatal Diagnosis
- Keywords
- Cytogenetics, aCGH, Prenatal Diagnosis
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 51 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 21 Nov 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 28 Feb 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 28 Feb 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 20 May 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Conventional cytogenetics has been the gold standard for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis. It allows a microscopic examination for any structural abnormalities of chromosome with a turn-around time of 2 to 3 weeks and it is also labour intensive. Array comparative genome hybridisation (aCGH) provides a platform for a higher resolution analysis of chromosomal aberrations in a shorter period of time. The effectiveness of its application in prenatal diagnosis has been examined. The main clinical limitation lies on the difficult interpretation of certain copy number variants (CNV). Our previous study has demonstrated an increase diagnostic yield of 3.2% using aCGH over conventional cytogenetics in the first-tier test study and by 6% as a further test in a cohort of fetuses with ultrasound abnormality and normal karyotype findings. This finding were consistent with the overall reported of 5.2% to 10% increased detection rate by other studies. Various authorities have also approved the use of aCGH as an adjunct diagnostic tool in prenatal cases with fetal ultrasound abnormalities.
The presence study aims to demonstrate the clinical acceptability on the use of aCGH to replace cytogenetics in prenatal diagnosis. For patients requiring invasive prenatal diagnosis by chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, they will be offered the options of having either conventional cytogenetics or aCGH. A standard unbiased counselling procedure will be performed by well trained midwives. For patients opting for conventional cytogenetics, the current procedure of karyotyping will be performed. For those opting for aCGH, a quantitative fluorescent Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) will be performed first to exclude common aneuploidies and triploidies. aCGH will be arranged for those with normal PCR results and conventional cytogenetics will be reserved for visualization of clinically significant CNVs.
All patients will be asked to complete the same questionnaire that has been adopted for the study on "Questionnaire survey on Knowledge and Acceptance on Application of whole genome array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) in Prenatal Diagnosis".
Detailed description
Conventional cytogenetics has been the gold standard for chromosomal analysis in prenatal diagnosis. It allows a microscopic examination for any structural abnormalities of chromosome with a turn-around time of 2 to 3 weeks and it is also labour intensive. Array comparative genome hybridisation (aCGH) provides a platform for a higher resolution analysis of chromosomal aberrations in a shorter period of time. The effectiveness of its application in prenatal diagnosis has been examined (Callaway, Shaffer, Chitty, Rosenfeld, \& Crolla, 2013). The main clinical limitation lies on the difficult interpretation of certain copy number variants (CNV). Our previous study has demonstrated an increase diagnostic yield of 3.2% using aCGH over conventional cytogenetics in the first-tier test study and by 6% as a further test in a cohort of fetuses with ultrasound abnormality and normal karyotype findings (Kan et al., 2014). This finding were consistent with the overall reported of 5.2% to 10% increased detection rate by other studies (de Wit et al., 2014; Hillman et al., 2013; Hillman et al., 2011). Various authorities have also approved the use of aCGH as an adjunct diagnostic tool in prenatal cases with fetal ultrasound abnormalities (American College of Obstetricians \& Gynecologists, 2013; Novelli et al., 2012).
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Women undergoing invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures | – | Diagnostic Test: aCGHFor women requiring invasive prenatal diagnosis by chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, they will be offered the options of having either conventional cytogenetics or aCGH. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- All women who require invasive prenatal diagnosis will be recruited.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All pregnant women requiring chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis at Tsan Yuk Hospital
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients who cannot read or understand Chinese or English
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| aCGHAlso: conventional cytogenetics | Diagnostic test | Women undergoing invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures |
Primary outcome
The preference of aCGH to conventional cytogenetics
Time frame: At the time of recruitment
Proportion of subjects choosing aCGH
1 secondary outcome
Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromosomal microarray as primary test for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong
Time frame: After completion of the aCGH for the last recruited subject in 2016
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 May 2019.
- Background: PubMed 24264715American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;122(6):1374-7. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000438962.16108.d1.
- Background: PubMed 23983223Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2013 Dec;33(12):1119-23. doi: 10.1002/pd.4209. Epub 2013 Sep 8.
- Background: PubMed 23897843de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LC, Van Opstal D, Galjaard RJ, Go AT. Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;43(2):139-46. doi: 10.1002/uog.12575.
- Background: PubMed 23512800Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, Togneri FS, James N, Maher EJ, Meller CH, Williams D, Wapner RJ, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):610-20. doi: 10.1002/uog.12464. Epub 2013 May 7.
- Background: PubMed 20658510Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;37(1):6-14. doi: 10.1002/uog.7754.
- Background: PubMed 24505343Kan AS, Lau ET, Tang WF, Chan SS, Ding SC, Chan KY, Lee CP, Hui PW, Chung BH, Leung KY, Ma T, Leung WC, Tang MH. Whole-genome array CGH evaluation for replacing prenatal karyotyping in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 5;9(2):e87988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087988. eCollection 2014.
- Background: PubMed 22262341Novelli A, Grati FR, Ballarati L, Bernardini L, Bizzoco D, Camurri L, Casalone R, Cardarelli L, Cavalli P, Ciccone R, Clementi M, Dalpra L, Gentile M, Gelli G, Grammatico P, Malacarne M, Nardone AM, Pecile V, Simoni G, Zuffardi O, Giardino D. Microarray application in prenatal diagnosis: a position statement from the cytogenetics working group of the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU), November 2011. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Apr;39(4):384-8. doi: 10.1002/uog.11092.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Prenatal Diagnosis
RecruitingPhase 1
Serial Amnioinfusions as Regenerative Therapy for Pulmonary Hypoplasia
Renal Failure Congenital, Congenital Renal Anomaly Nos
Enrolling by invitation
Testing Implementation Strategies to Support Clinic Fidelity to an Outpatient Hypertension Bundle
Pregnancy Related, Hypertension
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
North American Fetal Therapy Network Prospective Registry for Long-term Outcome Following Fetoscopic Endoluminal Tracheal Occlusion in Severe Left and Right Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Recruiting
An Online Intuitive Eating Program for Pregnant Women With Obesity to Support Well-Being
Excessive Gestational Weight Gain, Pregnancy
Recruiting
Fetal Repair of Complex Gastroschisis: A Safety and Feasibility Trial
Gastroschisis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Prenatal Diagnosis, run by The University of Hong Kong.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 May 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The preference of aCGH to conventional cytogenetics (time frame: At the time of recruitment). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03955588, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 May 2019.