Book contents
- Fetal Medicine
- Advanced Skills Series
- Fetal Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Section 1 Genetics and antenatal screening
- Section 2 Embryology, fetal physiology and fetal anatomy
- Section 3 Fetal anomalies
- Section 4 Fetal disease
- Section 5 Termination of pregnancy
- Section 6 Fetal growth and wellbeing
- Section 7 Multiple pregnancy
- Section 8 Placenta, amniotic membrane and amniotic fluid
- Section 9 Diagnostic and therapeutic invasive procedures
- Index
- References
Section 1 - Genetics and antenatal screening
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2016
Book contents
- Fetal Medicine
- Advanced Skills Series
- Fetal Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Section 1 Genetics and antenatal screening
- Section 2 Embryology, fetal physiology and fetal anatomy
- Section 3 Fetal anomalies
- Section 4 Fetal disease
- Section 5 Termination of pregnancy
- Section 6 Fetal growth and wellbeing
- Section 7 Multiple pregnancy
- Section 8 Placenta, amniotic membrane and amniotic fluid
- Section 9 Diagnostic and therapeutic invasive procedures
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Fetal Medicine , pp. 1 - 52Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
References
Chinnery, PF, Di Mauro, S, Shanske, S, et al. Risk of developing a mitochondrial DNA deletion disorder. Lancet 2004; 364: 592–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaway, JL, Shaffer, LG, Chitty, LS, et al. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenal Diagn 2013; 33: 1119–23.Google Scholar
Wapner, RJ, Martin, CL, Levy, B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175–84.Google Scholar
Committee opinion no. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 1374–7.Google Scholar
Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Pathologists and British Society for Human Genetics. Consent and confidentiality in clinical genetic practice: guidance on genetic testing and sharing genetic information, 2nd edn. Report of the Joint Committee on Medical Genetics. London: RCP, RCPath, 2011. www.bsgm.org.uk (accessed January 30, 2014).Google Scholar
Finning, K, Martin, P, Summers, J, et al. Effect of high throughput RHD typing of fetal DNA in maternal plasma on use of anti-RhD immunoglobulin in RhD negative pregnant women: prospective feasibility study. BMJ 2008; 336: 816–8.Google Scholar
Hill, M, Finning, K, Martin, P, et al. Non-invasive prenatal determination of fetal sex: translating research into clinical practice. Clin Genet 2011; 80(1): 68–75.Google Scholar
Firth, H, Hurst, J. Oxford Desk Reference – Clinical Genetics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Bibliography
Strachan, T, Read, A. Human Molecular Genetics 4th edn. Garland Science, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2011.Google Scholar
Gardner, RJM, Sutherland, GR, Shaffer, LG. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counselling, 4th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
References
Clinical Genetics Society. Clinical Genetics and Antenatal/Fetal Medicine: Liaison and Training. A report of the Clinical Genetics Society Prenatal Genetics Group, February 2008. www.clingensoc.org (accessed January 30, 2014).Google Scholar
Spriggs, EL, Rademaker, AW, Martin, RH. Aneuploidy in human sperm: the use of multicolor FISH to test various theories of nondisjunction. Am J Hum Genet 1996; 58(2): 356–62.Google Scholar
Hecht, CA, Hook, EB. The imprecision in rates of Down syndrome by 1-year maternal age intervals: a critical analysis of rates used in biochemical screening. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14: 729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, RJM, Sutherland, GR, Shaffer, LG. Chromosome abnormalities and Genetic Counselling, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, 2012; 408.Google Scholar
Kingston, HM. Common chromosomal disorders, In: ABC of Clinical Genetics, 3rd edn. BMJ Books, 2003; 19.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Johnson, MP, Yaron, Y, Drugan, A. Epidemiology of aneuploidy. In: Prenatal Diagnosis. McGraw-Hill, 2006; 22.Google Scholar
Gardner, RJM, Sutherland, GR, Shaffer, LG. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counselling, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, 2012; 290.Google Scholar
Gardner, RJM, Sutherland, GR, Shaffer, LG. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counselling, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, 2012; 293.Google Scholar
British Society for Human Genetics. Report on the genetic testing of children 2010. www.bsgm.org (accessed January 31, 2014).Google Scholar
Firth, HV, Hurst, JA. Oxford Desk Reference Clinical Genetics. Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Sheriden, E, Wright, J, Small, N et al. Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: an analysis of the Born in Bradford study. Lancet 2013; 382(9901): 1350–9.Google Scholar
Bibliography
Gardner, RJM, Sutherland, GR, Shaffer, LG. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counselling, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Firth, HV, Hurst, JA. Oxford Desk Reference Clinical Genetics. Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Harper, PS. Practical Genetic Counselling, 7th edn. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., 2010.Google Scholar
References
Wilson, JMG, Jungner, G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public Health Papers No. 34. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/php/WHO_PHP_34.pdf (accessed March 3, 2014).Google Scholar
Shepperd, S, Farndon, P, Grainge, V, et al. DISCERN – Genetics: quality criteria for information on genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet 2006; 14: 1179–88.Google Scholar
Norem, CT, Schoen, EJ, Walton, DL, et al. Routine ultrasonography compared with maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein for neural tube defect screening. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106(4): 747–52.Google Scholar
Benn, PA, Horne, D, Craffey, A, et al. Maternal serum screening for birth defects: results of a Connecticut regional programme. Connecticut Medicine 1996; 60(6): 323–7.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH, Snijders, RJM, Sebire, N. The 11–14 week Scan: The Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group; 1999.Google Scholar
Kagan, KO, Avgidou, K, Molina, FS, et al. Relation between increased fetal nuchal translucency thickness and chromosomal defects. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(1): 6.Google Scholar
Snijders, RJ, Noble, P, Sebire, N, et al. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group. Lancet 1998; 352(9125): 343–46.Google Scholar
Wald, NJ, Rodeck, C, Hackshaw, AK, et al.; SURUSS Research Group. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1–77.Google Scholar
Malone, FD, Canick, JA, Ball, RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2001–11.Google Scholar
Sotiriadis, A, Papatheodorou, S, Eleftheriades, M, et al. Nuchal translucency and major congenital heart defects in fetuses with normal karyotype: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42(4): 383.Google Scholar
Alamillo, CM, Fiddler, M, Pergament, E. Increased nuchal translucency in the presence of normal chromosomes: what’s next? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2012; 24(2): 102–8.Google Scholar
Hyett, J, Nicolaides, K. First trimester ultrasound screening with nuchal translucency. In: Evans, M, Johnson, MP, Yaron, Y, Drugan, A, eds. Prenatal Diagnosis, 1st edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005; 289–309.Google Scholar
Bianchi, DW, Crombleholme, TM, D’Alton, ME. Second trimester screening for aneuploidy. In: Fetology: Diagnosis and Management of the Fetal Patient, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010; 18–26.Google Scholar
Moreno-Cid, M, Rubio-Lorente, A, Rodríguez, MJ, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of performance of second-trimester nasal bone assessment in detection of fetuses with Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 247–53.Google Scholar
Kagan, KO, Valencia, C, Livanos, P, et al. Tricuspid regurgitation in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11+0 to 13+6 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 18–22.Google Scholar
Malone, FD, D’Alton, ME. First-Trimester Sonographic Screening for Down Syndrome. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003; 102(5): 1066–79.Google Scholar
Wapner, RJ. First trimester screening: the BUN study. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29: 236–9.Google Scholar
National Health Service UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). Screening for Down’s syndrome: UK NSC Policy recommendations 2011–2014 Model of Best Practice. NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (FASP).Google Scholar
Newby, D, Aitken, DA, Crossley, JA, et al. Biochemical markers of trisomy 21 and the pathophysiology of Down’s syndrome pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 1997; 17(10): 941.Google Scholar
Speroff, L, Glass, R, Kase, N. Textbook of Clinical Gynaecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, 6th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999; 275–339.Google Scholar
Palomaki, GE, Haddow, JE, Knight, GJ, et al. Risk-based prenatal screening for trisomy 18 using alpha-fetoprotein, unconjugated oestriol and human chorionic gonadotropin. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15(8): 713.Google Scholar
Devore, GR. Genetic sonography to assess the risk of aneuploidy combination of serum and ultrasound screening): the historical and clinical role of fetal echocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 509–21.Google Scholar
Orzechowski, KM, Berghella, V. Isolated fetal pyelectasis and the risk of Down syndrome: a meta-analysis Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 615–21.Google Scholar
Simon-Bouy, B, Satre, V, Ferec, C, et al. French Collaborative Group. Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: a large French collaborative study of 682 cases. Am J Med Genet A 2003; 121A(3): 209.Google Scholar
Scotet, V, Duguépéroux, I, Audrézet, MP, et al. Focus on cystic fibrosis and other disorders evidenced in fetuses with sonographic finding of echogenic bowel: 16-year report from Brittany, France. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203(6): 592.e1–e6.Google Scholar
Patel, Y, Boyd, PA, Chamberlain, P, et al. Follow-up of children with isolated fetal echogenic bowel with particular reference to bowel-related symptoms. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24(1): 35.Google Scholar
Nyberg, DA, Souter, VL, El-Bastawissi, A, et al. Isolated sonographic markers for detection of fetal Down’s syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1053–63.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health; commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman, 2nd edn. RCOG Press, March 2008.Google Scholar
Agathokleous, M, Chaveeva, P, Poon, LCY, et al. Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 247–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolaides, KH. Screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 21; 313–21.Google Scholar
Kirwan, D and the National Health Service Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (NHS FASP). 18+0 to 20+6 weeks Fetal Anomaly Scan National Standards and Guidance for England, January 2010.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Committee Opinion No. 545, 2012; 120: 1532–4.Google Scholar
Benn, P, Cuckle, H, Pergament, E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 15–33.Google Scholar
Chiu, RW, Akolekar, R, Zheng, YW. Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. BMJ 2011; 342: c7401.Google Scholar
Boat, TF. Cystic fibrosis. In: Behrman RE, Kliegman RM, Jenson HB, eds. Nelson Textbook of Paediatrics. WB Saunders Company, 2000; 1315–27.Google Scholar
Smail, F. Antibiotic treatment for symptomatic bacteriuria, antibiotic vs no treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy. CDSR 2002(3); 1–5.Google Scholar
Smail, F, Vazquez, JC. Antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy. CDSR, 2007, Apr 18; (2): CD 000490.Google Scholar
van Doornum, GJJ, Buimer, M, Gobbers, E, et al. Evaluation of an expanded two ELISA approach for confirmation of reactive serum samples in an HIV-screening programme for pregnant women. J Med Virol 1998; 54: 285–90.Google Scholar
National Health Service UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). The UK NSC recommendation on syphilis screening in pregnancy. http://www.screening.nhs.uk/syphilis (accessed February 12, 2014).Google Scholar