Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 28, 2020

The yield of chromosomal microarray testing for cases of abnormal fetal head circumference

  • Yael Pasternak ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Amihood Singer , Idit Maya , Lena Sagi-Dain , Shay Ben-Shachar , Morad Khayat , Lior Greenbaum , Michal Feingold-Zadok , Sharon Zeligson and Rivka Sukenik Halevy



Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is the method of choice for genetic work-up in cases of fetal malformations. We assessed the detection rate of CMA in cases of abnormal fetal head circumference (HC).


The study cohort was based on 81 cases of amniocenteses performed throughout Israel for the indication of microcephaly (53) or macrocephaly (28), from January 2015 through December 2018. We retrieved data regarding the clinical background, parental HCs and work-up during the pregnancy from genetic counseling summaries and from patients’ medical records.


There was only one likely pathogenic CMA result (1.89%): a 400-kb microdeletion at 16p13.3 detected in a case of isolated microcephaly. No pathogenic results were found in the macrocephaly group. Most fetuses with microcephaly were female (87.8%), while the majority with macrocephaly were males (86.4%).


The results imply that CMA analysis in pregnancies with microcephaly may carry a small yield compared to other indications. Regarding macrocephaly, our cohort was too small to draw conclusions. In light of the significant gender effect on the diagnosis of abnormal HC, standardization of fetal HC charts according to fetal gender may normalize cases that were categorized outside the normal range and may increase the yield of CMA for cases of abnormal HC.

Corresponding author: Yael Pasternak, Yael Pasternak, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, 59 Tchernichovsky St., Kfar Saba, Israel; and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, Phone: +972-97472232, Fax: +972-9-7472465

  1. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Helsinki Ethics Committee – approval no. MOH2016.


1. Chervenak FA, Jeanty P, Cantraine F, Chitkara U, Venus I, Berkowitz RL, et al. The diagnosis of fetal microcephaly. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;149:512–7.10.1016/0002-9378(84)90027-9Search in Google Scholar

2. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984;152:497–501.10.1148/radiology.152.2.6739822Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Barkovich AJ, Guerrini R, Kuzniecky RI, Jackson GD, Dobyns WB. A developmental and genetic classification for malformations of cortical development: update 2012. Brain 2012;135(Pt 5):1348–69.10.1093/brain/aws019Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Krauss MJ, Morrissey AE, Winn HN, Amon E, Leet TL. Microcephaly: an epidemiologic analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1484–9; discussion 9–90.10.1067/mob.2003.452Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Ashwal S, Michelson D, Plawner L, Dobyns WB. Practice parameter: evaluation of the child with microcephaly (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology 2009;73:887–97.10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b783f7Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

6. Alcantara D, O’Driscoll M. Congenital microcephaly. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2014;166c:124–39.10.1002/ajmg.c.31397Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Opitz JM, Holt MC. Microcephaly: general considerations and aids to nosology. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1990;10:175–204.Search in Google Scholar

8. von der Hagen M, Pivarcsi M, Liebe J, von Bernuth H, Didonato N, Hennermann JB, et al. Diagnostic approach to microcephaly in childhood: a two-center study and review of the literature. Dev Med Child Neurol 2014;56:732–41.10.1111/dmcn.12425Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Boonsawat P, Joset P, Steindl K, Oneda B, Gogoll L, Azzarello-Burri S, et al. Elucidation of the phenotypic spectrum and genetic landscape in primary and secondary microcephaly. Genet Med 2019;21:2043–58.10.1038/s41436-019-0464-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Dahlgren L, Wilson RD. Prenatally diagnosed microcephaly: a review of etiologies. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001;16:323–6.10.1159/000053935Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Ji X, Pan Q, Wang Y, Wu Y, Zhou J, Liu A, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of recurrent distal 1q21.1 duplication in three fetuses with ultrasound anomalies. Front Genet 2018;9:275.10.3389/fgene.2018.00275Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Herriges JC, Brown S, Longhurst M, Ozmore J, Moeschler JB, Janze A, et al. Identification of two 14q32 deletions involving DICER1 associated with the development of DICER1-related tumors. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:9–14.10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.04.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Shaheen R, Maddirevula S, Ewida N, Alsahli S, Abdel-Salam GMH, Zaki MS, et al. Genomic and phenotypic delineation of congenital microcephaly. Genet Med 2019;21:545–52.10.1038/s41436-018-0140-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

14. Foster A, Zachariou A, Loveday C, Ashraf T, Blair E, Clayton-Smith J, et al. The phenotype of Sotos syndrome in adulthood: a review of 44 individuals. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2019;181:502–8.10.1002/ajmg.c.31738Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Plamper M, Gohlke B, Schreiner F, Woelfle J. Phenotype-driven diagnostic of PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome: macrocephaly, but neither height nor weight development, is the important trait in children. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11:E975.10.3390/cancers11070975Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Practice bulletin No. 162: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:e108–22.10.1097/AOG.0000000000001405Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Shaffer LG, Rosenfeld JA, Dabell MP, Coppinger J, Bandholz AM, Ellison JW, et al. Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:986–95.10.1002/pd.3943Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Raun N, Mailo J, Spinelli E, He X, McAvena S, Brand L, et al. Quantitative phenotypic and network analysis of 1q44 microdeletion for microcephaly. Am J Med Genet A 2017;173:972–7.10.1002/ajmg.a.38139Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Nevado J, Rosenfeld JA, Mena R, Palomares-Bralo M, Vallespin E, Angeles Mori M, et al. PIAS4 is associated with macro/microcephaly in the novel interstitial 19p13.3 microdeletion/microduplication syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;23:1615–26.10.1038/ejhg.2015.51Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Wang HD, Liu L, Wu D, Li T, Cui CY, Zhang LZ, et al. Clinical and molecular cytogenetic analyses of four families with 1q21.1 microdeletion or microduplication. J Gene Med 2017;19:e2948.Search in Google Scholar

21. Sagi-Dain L, Cohen Vig L, Kahana S, Yacobson S, Tenne T, Agmon-Fishman I, et al. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies. Genet Med 2019;21:2462–7.10.1038/s41436-019-0550-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Srebniak MI, Joosten M, Knapen M, Arends LR, Polak M, van Veen S, et al. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51:445–52.10.1002/uog.17533Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Hook EB. Rates of chromosome abnormalities at different maternal ages. Obstet Gynecol 1981;58:282–5.Search in Google Scholar

24. South ST, Lee C, Lamb AN, Higgins AW, Kearney HM, Working Group for the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. ACMG standards and guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013. Genet Med 2013;15:901–9.10.1038/gim.2013.129Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Nellhaus G. Head circumference from birth to eighteen years. Practical composite international and interracial graphs. Pediatrics 1968;41:106–14.10.1542/peds.41.1.106Search in Google Scholar

26. Lal D, Pernhorst K, Klein KM, Reif P, Tozzi R, Toliat MR, et al. Extending the phenotypic spectrum of RBFOX1 deletions: sporadic focal epilepsy. Epilepsia 2015;56:e129–33.10.1111/epi.13076Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Abalos E, Cuesta C, Grosso AL, Chou D, Say L. Global and regional estimates of preeclampsia and eclampsia: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;170:1–7.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.05.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Malinger G, Lev D, Ben-Sira L, Hoffmann C, Herrera M, Vinals F, et al. Can syndromic macrocephaly be diagnosed in utero? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:72–81.10.1002/uog.8799Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Melamed N, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Wiznitzer A, Glezerman M, Yogev Y. Fetal sex and intrauterine growth patterns. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:35–43.10.7863/jum.2013.32.1.35Search in Google Scholar PubMed

30. Schwarzler P, Bland JM, Holden D, Campbell S, Ville Y. Sex-specific antenatal reference growth charts for uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at 15–40 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:23–9.10.1002/uog.966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

31. Galjaard S, Ameye L, Lees CC, Pexsters A, Bourne T, Timmerman D, et al. Sex differences in fetal growth and immediate birth outcomes in a low-risk Caucasian population. Biol Sex Differ 2019;10:48.10.1186/s13293-019-0261-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2020-02-09
Accepted: 2020-04-06
Published Online: 2020-04-28
Published in Print: 2020-07-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 3.6.2023 from
Scroll to top button