TABLE IV.
Comparison of the Detection Rate of Subtelomeric Rearrangements Among Three Studies
| Study | Technique | Clone coverage/subtelomere region | Subjects (N) | Abnormal cases (N) | Detection rate | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ravnan et al. [2006] | Subtelomere-FISH | 1 clone | 11,688 | 301 | 2.6% | ≤0.01b |
| Ballif et al. [2007] | Targeted array-CGH | 27 clones/5.7 Mb | 6,946 | 169 | 2.4% | ≤0.01c |
| FISH confirmation | ||||||
| Present study | Targeted array-CGH | 12 clones/10 Mb | 5,380 | 236 | 4.4% | |
| FISH confirmation | ||||||
| Present studya | Targeted array-CGH | 12 clones/10 Mb | 5,316 | 190 | 3.6% | |
| FISH confirmation |
a
Excluding 64 cases with known chromosomal abnormalities (among which 46 cases had subtelomeric genomic imbalances).
b
P-value was derived from Chi-square test between Ravnan's study (2.6%) and present study (4.4%).
c
P-value was derived from Chi square test between Ballif's study (2.4%) and present study excluding cases with known chromosomal abnormalities (3.6%).