Cargando…

Lessons learnt from prenatal exome sequencing

BACKGROUND: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for monogenic disorders in fetuses with structural anomalies increases diagnostic yield. In England there is a national trio ES service delivered from two laboratories. To minimise incidental findings and reduce the number of variants investigated, analysis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chandler, Natalie J., Scotchman, Elizabeth, Mellis, Rhiannon, Ramachandran, Vijaya, Roberts, Rowenna, Chitty, Lyn S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35506549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.6165
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for monogenic disorders in fetuses with structural anomalies increases diagnostic yield. In England there is a national trio ES service delivered from two laboratories. To minimise incidental findings and reduce the number of variants investigated, analysis uses a panel of 1205 genes where pathogenic variants may cause abnormalities presenting prenatally. Here we review our laboratory's early experience developing and delivering ES to identify challenges in interpretation and reporting and inform service development. METHODS: A retrospective laboratory records review from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2021. RESULTS: Twenty‐four of 116 completed cases were identified as challenging including 13 resulting in difficulties in analysis and reporting, nine where trio inheritance filtering would have missed the diagnosis, and two with no prenatal diagnosis; one due to inadequate pipeline sensitivity, the other because the gene was not on the panel. Two cases with copy number variants identified were not detectable by microarray. CONCLUSIONS: Variant interpretation requires close communication between referring clinicians, with occasional additional examination of the fetus or parents and communication of evolving phenotypes. Inheritance filtering misses ∼5% of diagnoses. Panel analysis reduces but does not exclude incidental findings. Regular review of published literature is required to identify new reports that may aid classification.