Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026

FISH for Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis
Published on: February 23, 2011
[Maternal biochemical screening -- an approach for genetic prevention. part 2. sequential approach with integrated
Unlabelled:
Performance of 2,5 year experience onprenatal (maternal) screening by integrated risk for Down syndrome and Edwards syndrome is presented in pregnant women underwent first (11(+0)-13(+6) g.w) and second trimester screening (14(+4)-19(+3) g.w), assessed by an integrated risk. Since the end of 2010 the most common strategy has been combination of both risks after contingent screening approach (serummarkers and US measurments from first test with indication to second trimester screening if the risk is intermediate or high and CVS diagnosis has been refused). Serummarkers were measured by fluorimetric immunoassay (Delfia) and risks were calculated using LifeCycle 3.2 software.
Results:
The test was performed on 491 women, less than 4452 and 13 016 women first and second trimester respectively. We found highrisk for a chromosome disorder in 32 (6,5%) cases: 19 (6,35%) women < 35 and 13 (6,7%) women > 35). Diagnosis of a chromosome diseases was found in 4 fetuses out of 32 (12,5%): 3 fetuses with trisomy 21 and 1 with trisomy 18. False positive results were found in 28 out of 491 (5,7%) women. Verified diagnosis on lyfor DS was found in 3 out of 4 cases (75% sensitivity), and false negative results in 25%. Discussion is focused on the comparison of the screening approaches - the sensitivity, limitation sand the step wise sequential testing way with integrated risk of achieving a high performance of screening.
Related Concept Videos
Genetic Screens
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

