5. Conclusions

With the advent of new genetic genomic technologies in the prenatal settings, the diagnostic yield in the etiology of CAs can be significantly improved. This has important consequences for the patients, as it enables the identification of the cause of CAs and, consequently, their prevention, as well as understanding the genetic epidemiology of CAs and designing optimal professional and cost-effective diagnostic algorithms for the diagnostics of CAs.

[7] Egbe AC. Birth defects in the newborn population: Race and ethnicity. Pediatrics and

Genomic Testing for Prenatal Clinical Evaluation of Congenital Anomalies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73247

409

[8] D'Amours G, Kibar Z, Mathonnet G, Fetni R, Tihy F, Désilets V, Nizard S, Michaud JL, Lemyre E. Whole-genome array CGH identifies pathogenic copy number variations in fetuses with major malformations and a normal karyotype. Clinical Genetics. 2012 Feb;81(2):

[9] Szczałuba K, Nowakowska B, Sobecka K, Smyk M, Castaneda J, Klapecki J, Kutkowska-Kaźmierczak A, Śmigiel R, Bocian E, Radkowski M, Demkow U. Application of Array comparative genomic hybridization in newborns with multiple congenital anomalies.

[10] Staebler M, Donner C, Van Regemorter N, Duprez L, De Maertelaer V, Devreker F, Avni F. Should determination of the karyotype be systematic for all malformations detected by

[11] Nicolaides KH, Snijders RJ, Gosden CM, Berry C, Campbell S. Ultrasonographically detect-

[12] Reddy UM, Page GP, Saade GR. The role of DNA microarrays in the evaluation of fetal

[13] Geiersbach KB, Gardiner AE, Wilson A, Shetty S, Bruyere H, Zabawsky J, et al. Subjectivity in chromosome band–level estimation: A multicenter study. Genetics in Medicine.

[14] Nietzel A, Rocchi M, Starke H, Heller A, Fiedler W, Wlodarska I, et al. A new multicolor-FISH approach for the characterization of marker chromosomes: Centromere-specific

[15] Spikes AS, Hegmann K, Smith JL, Shaffer LG. Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization to clarify a complex chromosomal rearrangement in a child with multiple congenital anom-

[16] Cai T, Yu P, Tagle DA, Lu D, Chen Y, Xia J. A de novo complex chromosomal rearrangement with a translocation 7;9 and 8q insertion in a male carrier with no infertility:

[17] Baldwin EL, Lee JY, Blake DM, Bunke BP, Alexander CR, Kogan AL, et al. Enhanced detection of clinically relevant genomic imbalances using a targeted plus whole genome

[18] Weimin B, Borgan C, Pursley AN, Hixson P, Shaw CA, Bacino CA, et al. Comparison of chromosome analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis: What is the value of chromosome analysis in today's genomic array era? Genetics in Medicine. 2013;15:450-457 [19] Gardner RJM, Sutherland GR, Shaffer LG. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic

[20] Rizzo N, Pittalis MC, Pilu G, Perolo A, Banzi C, Visentin A, et al. Distribution of abnormal karyotypes among malformed fetuses detected by ultrasound throughout gestation. Pre-

oligonucleotide microarray. Genetics in Medicine. 2008 Jun;10(6):415-429

Counseling. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011

multicolor-FISH (cenM-FISH). Human Genetics. 2001;108:199-204

alies. American Journal of Human Genetics. 1995;57:31-34

Case report. Human Reproduction. 2001;16:59-62

natal Diagnosis. 1996;16(2):159-163

able markers of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Lancet. 1992;340(8821):704

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2016;912:1-9

obstetrical ultrasound? Prenatal Diagnosis. 2005;25(7):567

death. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2012 Apr;32(4):371-375

Neonatology. 2015 Jun;56(3):183-188

128-141

2014;16:170-175

With the implementation of new genomic technologies in the diagnostic algorithm, approximately 50% of the genetic etiology of prenatally detected CAs can be explained. Therefore, we suggest a timely implementation of these technologies in prenatal diagnostics of CAs.
