Figure 6: Model explaining cytogenetic inconsistencies proposed by Crane and Cheung. Three examples of accidents to explain discrepancies between fetal karyotypes and placenta (direct preparation and villus culture).
g accident 1 (arrow 1): the direct preparation disagrees with villus and fetal cultures: mosaicism confined to the direct preparation.
g accident 2 (arrow 2): the fetal culture and cultured villi disagree with the direct preparation: normal cell lines in direct chromosome preparation associated with aneuplody in fetus and villus culture.
g accident 3 (arrow 3): the fetal culture and villus culture disagree with direct preparation: a single cell line in direct chromosome preparation with mosaicism in cultured villi and fetal tissue.
A mitotic non-disjunction at the morula stage before the differentiation of the inner cell mass (arrow 1, fig. 6) could explain the cases where direct preparation of trophoblast (mitotic cells issued from cytotrophoblast) shows chromosomal abnormality.
When the chromosomal abnormality is also found in long-term culture (arrows 2 and 3), this abnormality might be found in certain fetal tissues. Long-term culture cells come from the mesenchymal core, which is extra embryonic mesoderm and is derived from the inner cell mass as is the fetus.
Abnormal chorionic villi sampling karyotype in both direct and long-term culture could also be due to the puncture of a placenta from a vanishing abnormal twin14.
Another model presented recently by Morichon-Delvalley15 in a case of trisomy 15 involving chorionic-villi associated with Prader-Willi syndrome at birth might be the presence of a trisomic conceptus associated with the loss of one of the extra chromosomes in the fetus, with a one third risk of uniparental disomy for the originally affected chromosomal pair. The study on the molecular biological bases has not yet been carried out in our case.
Associated abnormalities
A review of 39 pregnancies in which chorionic villi sampling showed Level II or Level III mosaicism was published by Fryburg et al.16. In the cases in which the pregnancy continued (without fetal chromosomal abnormality), they failed to show a difference in the incidence of pregnancy loss, congenital malformation, or developmental delay in the infants, compared to a control group with chorionic villi sampling normal karyotypes. They found an increased incidence of IUGR in Level III mosaicism.
Level I pseudomosaicism refers to single cell abnormalities. In Level II mosaicism or Type II pseudo-mosaicism, mosaicism is detected in two or more cells from only one culture vessel. Type III or true mosaicism is defined as the presence of two or more cell lines recovered from more than one culture vessel.
In 1991, Kalousek et al.17 found an association of IUGR and fetal demise when an abnormal cell line was still detectable in term placenta. In 1992, William III et al.9 and Post et al.18 published two case reports of IUGR associated with trisomy 16 confined to the placenta. However, in a prospective study of 71 cytogenetic evaluations of placentas derived from growth-retarded newborns, Kennerknecht et al.19 did not show any case of true confined placental mosaicism.
Conclusions
Isolated placental thickness is associated with a bad fetal and neonatal prognosis. A thick placenta with large echo-free areas associated to IUGR with or without increased maternal alpha-fetoprotein should lead us to suspect a chromosomal anomaly confined to the placenta. A transabdominal chorionic villi sampling is indicated. The possibility exists of overlooking such an anomaly if the karyotype is studied only on the fetal cells (amniocytes, fetal lymphocytes). Even when the fetal karyotype is apparently normal, the loss of one of the chromosomes of a trisomic conceptus is not excluded, uniparental disomy having been shown in some patients. In this case, as well as in the case of true mosaicism confined to the placenta, we should expect a third trimester placental insufficiency.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Mr. Barry J. Hallinan for correcting the English text.
References
1. Fryburg JS, Dimaio MS, Yang-Feng TL, et al.: Follow up of pregnancies complicated by placental mosaicism diagnosed by chorionic villous sampling. Prenat Diagn 13:481-494, 1993.
2. Verjerslev LO, Mikelsen M: The European collaborative study on mosaicism in chorionic villous sampling: Data from 1986 to 1987. Prenat Diagn 9:575-588, 1989.
3. Crane JP, Cheung SW: An embryogenic model to explain cytogenetic inconsistencies observed in chorionic villus versus fetal tissue. Prenat Diagn 8:119-129, 1988.
4. Spence JE, Perciaccante RG, Grieg MG, et al.: Uniparental disomy as a mechanism for human genetic disease. Am J Hum Genet 42:217-226, 1988.
5. Kalousek DK, Dill FJ: Chromosomal mosaicism confined to the placenta in human conceptions. Science 221:665-667, 1983.
6. Simoni G, Gimelii G, Luco C, et al.: Discordance between prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis after chorionic villi sampling and chromosomal constitution of the fetus. In Fraccaro M,Simoni G, Brambati B, (Eds) First trimester fetal diagnosis p137-143, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
7. Sciorra LJ, Hux C, Day Salvadore D, et al.: Trisomy 5 mosaicism detected prenatally with an affected liveborn. Prenat Diagn 12:477-482, 1992.
8. Kalousek DK, Howard-Peebles PN, Olson SB, et al.: Confirmation of chorionic villi sampling mosaicism in term placentas and high frequency of intrauterine growth retardation: Association with confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 11: 743-750, 1991.
9. Williams III J, Wancy BB, Rubin CH, et al.: Apparent non mosaic trisomy 16 in chorionic villi: Diagnostic dilema or clinically significant finding? Prenat Diagn 12:163-168, 1992.
10. Dombrowski MP, Wolfe HM, Saleh A, et al.: The sonographically thick placenta: A predictor of increased perinatal morbidity and mortality. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2:252-255, 1992.
11. Constantine G, Fowlie A, Pearson J: Placental biopsy in the third trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 12:783-788, 1992.
12. Jauniaux E, Campbell S: Placenta and cord in ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Dewbury K, Meire H, Cosgrove D, Livingstone C , Chap.23, 443-444, Edinburgh, 1993.
13. Jauniaux E, Moscoso G, Campbell S, et al.: Correlation of ultrasound and pathologic findings of placental anomalies in pregnancies with elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein. Eur J ObstetGynecol Reprod Biol 37:219-230, 1990.
14. Tharapel AT, Elias S, Shulman LP, et al.: Resorbed co-twin as an explanation for discrepant chorionic villus results: Non mosaic 47, XX, +16 villi (direct and culture) with normal (46, XX) amniotic fluid and neonatal blood. Prenat Diagn 9: 467-472, 1989.
15. Morichon-Delvallez N, Mussat P, Dumez Y, et al.: Trisomy 15 in chorionic villi and Prader-Willy syndrome at birth. Prenat Diagn 13:307-308, 1993.
16. Fryburg JS, Dimaio MS, Yang-Feng TL, et al.: Follow-up of pregnancies complicated by placental mosaicism diagnosed by chorionic villous sampling. Prenat Diagn 13:481-494, 1993.
17. Kalousek DK, Howard-Peebles PN, Olson SB, et al.: Confirmation of chorionic villi sampling mosaicism in term placentas and high frequency of intrauterine growth retardation: Association with confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 11: 743-750, 1991.
18. Post JG, Nijhuis JG: Trisomy 16 confined to the placenta. Prenat Diagn 12:1001-1007, 1992.
19. Kennerknecht I, Krämer S, Grab D, et al.: A prospective cytogenetic study of third-trimester placentas in small-for-date but otherwise normal newborns. Prenat Diagn 13:257-269, 1993.