Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 7 (12), e980

Combination of QF-PCR and aCGH Is an Efficient Diagnostic Strategy for the Detection of Chromosome Aberrations in Recurrent Miscarriage


Combination of QF-PCR and aCGH Is an Efficient Diagnostic Strategy for the Detection of Chromosome Aberrations in Recurrent Miscarriage

Luca Lovrečić et al. Mol Genet Genomic Med.


Background: Our aim was to conduct a comprehensive genetic evaluation using the combination of QF-PCR (quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction) and aCGH (array comparative genomic hybridization) for the detection of the frequency and type of chromosome aberrations in recurrent miscarriage (RM) in the clinical setting.

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 73 first-trimester products of conception (POC) between September 2014 and February 2017. The POCs were collected from 73 women with at least one previous miscarriage and analyzed for chromosomal anomalies using QF-PCR and aCGH as part of the routine clinical evaluation.

Results: Chromosome aberrations were detected in 52/73 POCs (71.2%), of which 41 (56.2%) were identified by QF-PCR and an additional 11 (15.1%) by aCGH. Numerical aberrations constituted 92.3% of abnormalities, with trisomies as the most common subtype (72.9%). Causative structural aberrations were found in three samples (5.8%). The frequency of chromosome aberrations was not dependent on the number of previous miscarriages, whereas it significantly increased with advanced maternal age.

Conclusion: Our results confirm that chromosome aberrations are the most common cause of RM and that QF-PCR and aCGH combination should be included in the routine genetic analysis of POCs of couples with miscarriage.

Keywords: QF-PCR; aCGH; chromosome aberrations; recurrent miscarriage.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.


Figure 1
Figure 1
The protocol used for genetic analysis of products of conception

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 PubMed Central articles


    1. Barber J. C., Cockwell A. E., Grant E., Williams S., Dunn R., & Ogilvie C. M. (2010). Is karyotyping couples experiencing recurrent miscarriage worth the cost? BJOG, 117, 885–888. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02566.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bernardi L. A., Plunkett B. A., & Stephenson M. D. (2012). Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving? A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation. Fertility and Sterility, 98, 156–161. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.038 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bianco K., Caughey A. B., Shaffer B. L., Davis R., & Norton M. E. (2006). History of miscarriage and increased incidence of fetal aneuploidy in subsequent pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107, 1098–1102. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000215560.86673.22 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brezina P. R., & Kutteh W. H. (2014). Classic and cutting‐edge strategies for the management of early pregnancy loss. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 41, 1–18. 10.1016/j.ogc.2013.10.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carp H., Guetta E., Dorf H., Soriano D., Barkai G., & Schiff E. (2006). Embryonic karyotype in recurrent miscarriage with parental karyotypic aberrations. Fertility and Sterility, 85, 446–450. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1305 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources