Exploring the factors affecting classification and reporting of uncertain prenatal microarray findings, using a "virtual fetus" model-a pilot study.
Journal
Prenatal diagnosis
ISSN: 1097-0223
Titre abrégé: Prenat Diagn
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8106540
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Feb 2024
14 Feb 2024
Historique:
revised:
12
01
2024
received:
27
09
2023
accepted:
01
02
2024
medline:
14
2
2024
pubmed:
14
2
2024
entrez:
14
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Significant discrepancy exists between laboratories in classification and reporting of copy number variants (CNVs). Studies exploring factors affecting prenatal CNV management are rare. Our "virtual fetus" pilot study examines these factors. Ten prenatally diagnosed CNVs of uncertain significance (VUS) > 1Mb, encompassing OMIM-morbid genes, inherited from healthy parents, were classified by 15 MD geneticists from laboratory, prenatal, and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) units. Geneticists addressed factors affecting classification, obligation to report, and recommendation for invasive testing or PGT. CNVs were classified likely benign (10.7%), VUS (74.7%), likely pathogenic (8.7%), or pathogenic (6.0%). Classification discrepancy was higher for losses versus gains. Classifying pathogenic/likely pathogenic was more common for losses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.9, 95% CI 1.55-76.9), and geneticists specializing in gynecology (aOR 4.9, 95% CI 1.03-23.3). 84.0% of respondents would report CNVs, depending on classification and family phenotype. Invasive testing in pregnancies was recommended for 29.3% of CNVs, depending on the classification and geneticist's specialization. PGT was recommended for 32.4%, depending on classification, experience years, and family's phenotype (38.0% for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization irrespectively, 26.7% otherwise). Factors affecting CNV classification/reporting are mainly dosage, family phenotype, geneticist specialization and experience. Understanding factors from our pilot study may facilitate developing an algorithm for clinical consensus and optimal management.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
ACOG. Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1374-1377.
Sagi-Dain L, Cohen Vig L, Kahana S, et al. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies. Genet Med. 2019;21(11):2462-2467. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0550-x
Sagi-Dain L, Maya I, Reches A, et al. Chromosomal microarray analysis results from pregnancies with various ultrasonographic anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(6):1368-1375. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002975
Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, et al. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Genet Med. 2020;22(2):245-257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0686-8
Vears DF, Elferink M, Kriek M, Borry P, van Gassen KL. Analysis of laboratory reporting practices using a quality assessment of a virtual patient. Genet Med. 2021;23(3):562-570. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-01015-7
Harrison SM, Dolinsky JS, Knight Johnson AE, et al. Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar. Genet Med. 2017;19(10):1096-1104. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.14
Vears DF, Senecal K, Borry P. Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next-generation sequencing technologies: perspectives of laboratory personnel. Hum Mutat. 2017;38(8):905-911. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.23259
Smajlagić D, Lavrichenko K, Berland S, et al. Population prevalence and inheritance pattern of recurrent CNVs associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in 12,252 newborns and their parents. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021;29(1):205-215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00707-7
Kendall KM, Bracher-Smith M, Fitzpatrick H, et al. Cognitive performance and functional outcomes of carriers of pathogenic copy number variants: analysis of the UK Biobank. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;214(5):297-304. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.301
Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, et al. Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1321-1331. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1200395