Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Cytogenetic information on cells from cytotrophoblast, villus mesenchyme, and one or more fetal tissues was available for 192 gestations with mosaicism or non-mosaic fetoplacental discrepancy involving a single autosomal trisomy in the chorionic villus sample (CVS), registered in a collaborative study (EUCROMIC) during the period 1986-1994. In order to identify predictors of confined placental mosaicism (CPM), generalized mosaicism and/or uniparental disomy (UPD), distribution of the mosaic and nonmosaic aneuploid cell lines in the different fetal and extrafetal cell lineages were analyzed. Data were related to existing hypotheses on mechanisms leading to fetoplacental discrepancies and early extraembryonic cell differentiation. Trisomy 21 mosaicism was the one most frequently confirmed in the fetus. Non-mosaic trisomy 13, 18, and 21 in the villus mesenchyme indicated the presence of a trisomic cell line in the fetus proper. Non-mosaic trisomy 2, 7, and 16 in villus mesenchyme was always found with concomitant mosaic or non-mosaic trisomy in the cytotrophoblast, but was never recovered in the fetus. Mosaic trisomy 3, 7, and 20 was predominantly restricted to the cytotrophoblast, mosaic trisomy 2 to the villus mesenchyme. Trisomies 15 and 16 were most often found in both cytotrophoblast and villus mesenchyme and not in fetal cells. This supports the hypothesis that mosaicism/discrepancy for trisomies 15 and 16 results more often than for the other trisomies from trisomic zygote rescue, enhancing their risk for UPD. We recommend, due to the risk of fetal trisomy, amniocentesis in all gestations involving mosaic autosomal trisomy in villus mesenchyme. In gestations with mosaic or non-mosaic autosomal trisomy in both cytotrophoblast and villus mesenchyme we recommend, in order to exclude fetal trisomy and/or UPD, depending on the chromosome involved, further examination by amniocentesis, ultrasound and/or test for UPD. We also recommend, due to a small but not negligible risk of false negative and false positive diagnoses, not to solely use direct preparation.
Hahnemann et al. (Fri,) studied this question.