Evaluation of Diagnostic Yield in Fetal Whole-Exome Sequencing: A Report on 45 Consecutive Families.
clinical genetics
congenital anomalies
prenatal diagnosis
ultrasound abnormalities
whole-exome sequencing (WES)
Journal
Frontiers in genetics
ISSN: 1664-8021
Titre abrégé: Front Genet
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101560621
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
17
11
2018
accepted:
17
04
2019
entrez:
21
8
2019
pubmed:
21
8
2019
medline:
21
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prenatal ultrasound (US) abnormalities often pose a clinical dilemma and necessitate facilitated investigations in the search of diagnosis. The strategy of pursuing fetal whole-exome sequencing (WES) for pregnancies complicated by abnormal US findings is gaining attention, but the reported diagnostic yield is variable. In this study, we describe a tertiary center's experience with fetal WES from both terminated and ongoing pregnancies, and examine the clinical factors affecting the diagnostic rate. A total of 45 consecutive families of Jewish descent were included in the analysis, for which clinical fetal WES was performed under either single (fetus only), trio (fetus and parents) or quatro (two fetuses and parents) design. Except one, all families were non-consanguineous. In 41 of the 45 families, WES was sought following abnormal fetal US findings, and 18 of them had positive relevant family history (two or more fetuses with US abnormalities, or single fetus with US abnormalities and an affected parent). The overall diagnostic yield was 28.9% (13/45 families), and 31.7% among families with fetal US abnormalities (13/41). It was significantly higher in families with prenatal US abnormalities and relevant family history (10/18, 55.6%), compared to families with prenatal US abnormal findings and lack of such history (3/23, 13%) (
Identifiants
pubmed: 31428121
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00425
pmc: PMC6688107
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
425Références
Hum Mutat. 2011 Jun;32(6):573-8
pubmed: 21462283
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 6;367(23):2226-32
pubmed: 23215558
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 17;369(16):1502-11
pubmed: 24088041
Clin Genet. 2014 Sep;86(3):220-8
pubmed: 24128419
Hum Mol Genet. 2014 Jun 15;23(12):3269-77
pubmed: 24476948
Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 May;23(5):616-20
pubmed: 25118024
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;45(1):4-9
pubmed: 25157891
JAMA. 2014 Nov 12;312(18):1880-7
pubmed: 25326637
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
Nat Genet. 2015 Jul;47(7):717-726
pubmed: 25985138
J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):3-15
pubmed: 26250718
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015 Aug 07;5(10):null
pubmed: 26253094
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Oct;35(10):1010-7
pubmed: 26275891
Clin Genet. 2016 Mar;89(3):275-84
pubmed: 26283276
PeerJ. 2016 Apr 26;4:e1955
pubmed: 27168972
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016 May 14;11(1):62
pubmed: 27179618
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Feb;25(2):176-182
pubmed: 27848944
Genet Med. 2017 Nov;19(11):1207-1216
pubmed: 28518170
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Jan;38(1):10-19
pubmed: 28654730
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Dec 4;171(12):e173438
pubmed: 28973083
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr;51(4):493-502
pubmed: 28976722
J Ultrasound Med. 2018 Jul;37(7):1827-1833
pubmed: 29331079
Hum Genet. 2018 Feb;137(2):175-181
pubmed: 29392406
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018 Mar;45(1):69-81
pubmed: 29428287
Genet Med. 2018 Nov;20(11):1430-1437
pubmed: 29595812
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):80-86
pubmed: 29947050
Eur J Med Genet. 2019 Mar;62(3):167-171
pubmed: 30006055
Genome Med. 2018 Sep 28;10(1):74
pubmed: 30266093
Lancet. 2019 Feb 23;393(10173):758-767
pubmed: 30712878
Lancet. 2019 Feb 23;393(10173):747-757
pubmed: 30712880