O&G Vivas · Antenatal care — prenatal diagnosis
Prenatal diagnosis — structured oral station (12 minutes)
FRANZCOG oral-format station on prenatal diagnosis: candidate defends microarray over karyotype for an anomaly with normal karyotype, quotes the modern loss rate, and interprets a variant of uncertain significance under the ACMG standard. Scored against the eight published RANZCOG oral domains.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
FRANZCOGMRCOGABOG
Prompt
You are the registrar in fetal medicine. A 36-year-old woman at 18 weeks has a fetal cardiac anomaly on the anatomy scan and a normal karyotype. She is anxious, wants the most informative test, and asks whether a 'more detailed genetic test' exists. The examiner will ask you to choose and defend the laboratory strategy, counsel the loss risk, and interpret a variant of uncertain significance.
Station format
4 minutes reading, 12 minutes examination, 20 marks, global scoring. The eight published RANZCOG oral domains apply to every station. [1]
Reveal the examiner script and model responsesShowHide
Opening prompt — "What test would you offer?"
Model response: [3]
- "Because the fetus has a structural anomaly and the karyotype is normal, the right next test is chromosomal microarray, not a repeat karyotype."
- "Microarray looks at far higher resolution and finds copy-number variants — small deletions and duplications — that the karyotype cannot see."[3]
- "It is done on amniotic fluid, which we already have, so she does not need another procedure."[1]
Probe 1 — "How much more does microarray find?"
- "In the Wapner NEJM 2012 study of over 4400 samples, microarray found clinically relevant copy-number variants in an additional 6.0% of structurally abnormal fetuses with a normal karyotype. For a cardiac anomaly like this, that is a meaningful yield."[3]
Probe 2 — "She is worried the amnio will cause a miscarriage. What do you tell her?"
- "The modern figure is reassuring. A 2019 meta-analysis put the procedure-related miscarriage risk at about 0.3% for amniocentesis above background, and close to zero in matched-risk studies. She has already had the amnio — the sample exists — so there is no additional procedure here."[2]
- "I would not quote the old 1% figure; it overstates the risk."[1][2]
Probe 3 — "Microarray is normal, but fetal exome sequencing returns a variant of uncertain significance. What do you do?"
- "Under the ACMG 2015 standard, a variant of uncertain significance is not acted upon as if it were pathogenic. I would refer to clinical genetics, offer parental segregation testing to help reclassify it, and counsel that it may be reclassified as evidence accumulates. I would not recommend termination on the basis of a VUS."[5]
Probe 4 — "Does microarray ever miss something?"
- "Yes — two things. It does not detect balanced translocations, where chromosomal material is rearranged without net loss, and it does not detect triploidy. If either is suspected, we need a karyotype."[3]
Probe 5 — "She is overwhelmed. Counsel her."
This is a scored domain. Demonstrate it out loud: [1]
- Move to her eye level, use her name, validate the overwhelm: "It is a lot, and we will take it step by step."
- Brief plainly: "We are looking at the baby's genes in fine detail. Some results are clear and some are uncertain, and our genetics team will explain every one. There is no rush, and no decision is needed today."
- Offer a written summary, a follow-up, and the genetic counsellor contact.[1]
References4ShowHide
- [1]Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling: Green-top Guideline No. 8 BJOG, 2010.Source
- [2]Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, et al. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2019.PMID 31124209
- [3]Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis N Engl J Med, 2012.PMID 23215555
- [5]Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology Genet Med, 2015.PMID 25741868