Fetal hydrops and the Incremental yield of Next-generation sequencing over standard prenatal Diagnostic testing (FIND) study: prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.
Female
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Hydrops Fetalis
/ diagnosis
Karyotyping
/ statistics & numerical data
Microarray Analysis
/ statistics & numerical data
Predictive Value of Tests
Pregnancy
Prenatal Diagnosis
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Exome Sequencing
/ statistics & numerical data
exome sequencing
fetus
hydrops
next-generation sequencing
non-immune hydrops fetalis
prenatal diagnosis
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
revised:
25
03
2021
received:
02
02
2021
accepted:
29
03
2021
pubmed:
14
4
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
13
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the incremental yield of exome sequencing (ES) over chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) or karyotyping in prenatally diagnosed non-immune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). A prospective cohort study (comprising an extended group of the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study) was performed which included 28 cases of prenatally diagnosed NIHF undergoing trio ES following negative CMA or karyotyping. These cases were combined with data from a systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched electronically (January 2000 to October 2020) for studies reporting on the incremental yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping in fetuses with prenatally detected NIHF. Inclusion criteria for the systematic review were: (i) at least two cases of NIHF undergoing sequencing; (ii) testing initiated based on prenatal ultrasound-based phenotype; and (iii) negative CMA or karyotyping result. The incremental diagnostic yield of ES was assessed in: (i) all cases of NIHF; (ii) isolated NIHF; (iii) NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly; and (iv) NIHF according to severity (i.e. two vs three or more cavities affected). In the extended PAGE study cohort, the additional diagnostic yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping was 25.0% (7/28) in all NIHF cases, 21.4% (3/14) in those with isolated NIHF and 28.6% (4/14) in those with non-isolated NIHF. In the meta-analysis, the pooled incremental yield based on 21 studies (306 cases) was 29% (95% CI, 24-34%; P < 0.00001; I Use of prenatal next-generation sequencing in both isolated and non-isolated NIHF should be considered in the development of clinical pathways. Given the wide range of potential syndromic diagnoses and heterogeneity in the prenatal phenotype of NIHF, exome or whole-genome sequencing may prove to be a more appropriate testing approach than a targeted gene panel testing strategy. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33847422
doi: 10.1002/uog.23652
pmc: PMC8487902
mid: NIHMS1695948
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
509-518Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : FS/18/79/33932
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K12 HD001262
Pays : United States
Organisme : Health Innovation Challenge from the UK Department of Health and Wellcome Trust
ID : HICF-R7-396
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
J Med Genet. 2019 Oct;56(10):654-661
pubmed: 31040167
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;57(1):43-51
pubmed: 32388881
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;56(3):416-421
pubmed: 32196790
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Sep;40(10):1300-1309
pubmed: 32627857
Lancet. 2019 Feb 23;393(10173):747-757
pubmed: 30712880
Clin Genet. 2019 May;95(5):582-589
pubmed: 30868567
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;45(1):27-35
pubmed: 25319878
Genet Med. 2019 Jun;21(6):1339-1344
pubmed: 30410095
Clin Chem. 2003 Jan;49(1):1-6
pubmed: 12507953
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Apr;42(4):385-91
pubmed: 26712114
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Oct;35(10):1022-9
pubmed: 26275793
BJOG. 2021 Aug;128(9):e39-e50
pubmed: 33590639
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;212(2):127-39
pubmed: 25557883
Lancet. 2019 Feb 23;393(10173):758-767
pubmed: 30712878
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Genome Med. 2018 Sep 28;10(1):74
pubmed: 30266093
Prenat Diagn. 2019 Aug;39(9):732-750
pubmed: 31087399
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Apr;40(5):590-595
pubmed: 31994743
Am J Med Genet. 2000 May 29;92(3):159-65
pubmed: 10817648
Genet Med. 2017 Oct;19(10):1171-1178
pubmed: 28425981
Front Genet. 2019 Jun 25;10:425
pubmed: 31428121
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jun;99(6):783-790
pubmed: 32304219
Genet Med. 2018 Jul;20(7):745-753
pubmed: 29261186
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Jun;40(7):803-812
pubmed: 32267001
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Jul 3;105(1):132-150
pubmed: 31230720
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Sep;21(9):936-42
pubmed: 23321623
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Jan;38(1):33-43
pubmed: 29096039
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Oct;40(11):1426-1431
pubmed: 32668055
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;39(1):56-62
pubmed: 21584887
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Genet Med. 2021 Jan;23(1):3-12
pubmed: 33082562
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 29;383(18):1746-1756
pubmed: 33027564
Nucleic Acids Res. 2021 Jan 8;49(D1):D1207-D1217
pubmed: 33264411
Genet Med. 2017 Nov;19(11):1207-1216
pubmed: 28518170
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Mar;40(4):492-496
pubmed: 31981373
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Jul;40(8):972-983
pubmed: 32333414
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019 Jul;104(4):F452-F456
pubmed: 30816854