Chromosomal microarray testing yield in 829 cases of microcephaly: a clinical characteristics-based analysis for prenatal and postnatal cases.

INTRODUCTION: Microcephaly, characterized by abnormal head growth, can often serve as an initial indicator of congenital, genetic, or acquired disorders. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing in detecting abnormalities in both prenatal and postnatal cases of microcephaly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CMA Testing: We conducted CMA testing on 87 prenatally-detected microcephaly cases and 742 postnatal cases at a single laboratory. We evaluated the CMA yield in relation to specific clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In prenatal cases, pathogenic and likely pathogenic (LP) results were identified in 4.6% of cases, a significantly higher rate compared to low-risk pregnancies. The male-to-female ratio in this cohort was 3, and the CMA yield was not influenced by gender or other clinical parameters. For postnatal cases, the CMA yield was 15.0%, with a significantly higher detection rate associated with dysmorphism, hypotonia, epilepsy, congenital heart malformations (CHM), learning disabilities (LD), and a history of Fetal growth restriction (FGR). No specific recurrent copy number variations (CNVs) were observed, and the rate of variants of unknown significance was 3.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of CMA testing in prenatal microcephaly is lower than in postnatal cases (4.6% vs. 15%). The presence of microcephaly, combined with dysmorphism, hypotonia, epilepsy, CHD, LD, and FGR, significantly increases the likelihood of an abnormal CMA result.

Exploring the factors affecting classification and reporting of uncertain prenatal microarray findings, using a "virtual fetus" model-a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

A severe neurocognitive phenotype caused by biallelic CHD3 variants in two siblings.

CHD3 heterozygous variants are associated with Snijders Blok-Campeau syndrome (SBCS) which consists of intellectual disability (ID), macrocephaly, and dysmorphic facies. Most reported variants are missense or loss of function clustered within the ATPase/helicase domain of the protein. We report a severe neurocognitive phenotype caused by biallelic CHD3 variants in two siblings, each inherited from a mildly affected parent. Male and female siblings were referred to the Genetics Clinic due to severe ID and profound dysmorphism. The parents are first cousins of Iranian descent with borderline intellectual abilities. Exome sequencing was performed for the affected female and her parents. A single homozygous candidate variant in the CHD3 gene was detected in the proband: c.5384_5389dup. p.Arg1796_Phe1797insTrpArg, resulting in an in-frame insertion of 2 amino acids located outside the ATPase/helicase domain at the C-terminal region of CHD3-encoding residues. This variant is classified as likely pathogenic according to ACMG guidelines. The variant was detected in a heterozygous state in each parent. Both affected siblings were homozygous, while their unaffected brother did not carry the variant. Biallelic CHD3 variants cause a severe neurodevelopmental syndrome that is distinguishable from SBCS. We assume that the variant type (in-frame insertion) and location may enable CHD3 biallelic variants.

A call for public funding of invasive and non-invasive prenatal testing.

For decades, prenatal screening and genetic testing strategies were limited, requiring less complex decisions. Recently, however, several new advanced technologies were introduced, including chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS), bringing about the need to choose the most appropriate testing for each pregnancy. A worrisome issue is that opposed to the wide implementation and debates over public funding of NIPS, currently invasive testing is still recommended only in selected pregnancies with increased risk for chromosomal aberrations (according to screening tests or sonographic anomalies). This current decision-making regarding public funding for invasive and screening testing might compromise informed consent and patient's autonomy. In this manuscript, we compare several characteristics of CMA vs. NIPS, namely: the accuracy and the diagnostic scope, the risks for miscarriage and for clinically uncertain findings, the timing for testing, and pretest counselling. We argue that it must be recognized that one size might not fit all, and suggest that both options should be presented to all couples through early genetic counseling, with public funding for the specific selected test.

Possible biallelic inheritance in TIE1 in a family with congenital lymphedema, intestinal lymphangiectasia and cutis aplasia.

A short report of two male siblings born with cutis aplasia, lymphedema and intestinal lymphangiectasia, one found to carry bi-allelic variants in the TIE1 gene known to be associated with congenital lymphedema.

Prenatal gender-customized head circumference nomograms result in reclassification of microcephaly and macrocephaly.

BACKGROUND: Local and worldwide prenatal charts for estimated fetal weight and postnatal charts for head circumference are gender specific. However, prenatal head circumference nomograms are not gender customized. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create gender-customized curves to assess between-gender head circumference differences and to study the clinical significance of using such gender-customized curves. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center retrospective study was conducted between June 2012 and December 2020. Prenatal head circumference measurements were obtained from routine estimated fetal weight ultrasound scans. Postnatal head circumference measurement at birth and gender were retrieved from computerized neonatal files. Head circumference curves were created, and the normal range was defined for the male and female subpopulations. After applying gender-specific curves, we analyzed the outcome of cases classified as microcephaly and macrocephaly according to non-gender-customized curves, which were reclassified as normal according to gender-specific curves. For these cases, clinical information and postnatal long-term outcomes were retrieved from patients' medical records. RESULTS: The cohort included 11,404 participants (6000 males and 5404 females). The curve for male head circumference was significantly higher than the female curve for all gestational weeks (P<.0001). Applying gender customized curves resulted in fewer cases of male fetuses defined as 2 standard deviations above the normal range and female fetuses defined as 2 standard deviations below of the normal range. Cases reclassified as normal head circumference after the application of gender-customized curves were not related to increased adverse postnatal outcomes. The rate of neurocognitive phenotypes was not higher than the expected rate in both male and female cohorts. Polyhydramnios and gestational diabetes mellitus were more common in the normalized male cohort, whereas oligohydramnios, fetal growth restriction, and cesarean delivery were more common in the normalized female cohort. CONCLUSION: Prenatal gender-customized curves for head circumference can reduce the overdiagnosis of microcephaly in females and macrocephaly in males. According to our results, gender-customized curves did not affect the clinical yield of prenatal measurements. Therefore, we suggest that gender-specific curves be used to avoid unnecessary workup and parental anxiety.

Large scale population screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy-Predictable and unpredictable challenges.

OBJECTIVE: Large deletions and duplications account for 65%-80% of pathogenic Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) variants. A nationwide carrier screening for DMD was initiated in Israel in 2020. We assessed the carrier rate and spectrum of variants detected in a cohort of women screened for DMD carrier status and analyzed screening efficacy and challenges related to DMD population screening. METHODS: A cohort of 12,362 women were tested at a single institute using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification based copy number analysis of the 79 DMD exons. Consecutive sequencing of the primer region was performed when a single exon deletion was suspected. RESULTS: Deletions involving multiple exons were detected in seven cases and duplications involving multiple exons were found in four. Of these, nine were pathogenic based on previous reports and familial segregation testing, translating to a carrier rate of 1:1374. A family history was reported in three cases. Single exon deletions were suspected in 81 cases; further sequencing detected a single nucleotide variant affecting probe hybridization. These cases clustered according to ethnic origin. DISCUSSION: Population screening for DMD has a significant yield. Most carriers did not report a family history of dystrophinopathies. Screening should be adjusted for methodological limitations. Some cases may require extensive genetic counseling and work-up.

The prevalence of prenatal sonographic findings in postnatal diagnostic exome sequencing performed for neurocognitive phenotypes: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) is currently indicated for fetal malformations. Some neurocognitive genetic disorders may not have a prenatal phenotype. We assessed the prevalence of prenatally detectable phenotypes among patients with neurocognitive syndromes diagnosed postnatally by ES. METHODS: The medical files of a cohort of 138 patients diagnosed postnatally with a neurocognitive disorder using ES were reviewed for prenatal sonographic data. The Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database was searched for prenatally detectable phenotypes for all genes identified. RESULTS: Prenatal imaging data were available for 122 cases. Of these, 29 (23.75%) had fetal structural abnormalities and another 29 had other ultrasound abnormalities (fetal growth restriction, polyhydramnios, elevated nuchal translucency). In 30 patients, structural aberrations that were not diagnosed prenatally were detected at birth; in 21 (17.2%), the abnormalities could theoretically be detected prenatally by third-trimester/targeted scans. According to OMIM, 55.9% of the diagnosed genes were not associated with structural anomalies. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients (52.5%) with postnatally diagnosed neurocognitive disorders did not have prenatal sonographic findings indicating prenatal ES should be considered. The prevalence of specific prenatal phenotypes such as fetal growth restriction and polyhydramnios in our cohort suggests that additional prenatal findings should be assessed as possible indications for prenatal ES.

Prenatal and postnatal chromosomal microarray analysis in 885 cases of various congenital heart defects.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of clinically significant (pathogenic and likely pathogenic) variants detected by chromosomal microarray (CMA) tests performed for prenatally and postnatally detected congenital heart defects. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of CMA analyses over a period of four years in a single tertiary medical center was performed. Detection rate of clinically significant variants was calculated in the whole cohort, prenatal vs. postnatal cases, and isolated vs. non-isolated CHD. This rate was compared to previously published control cohorts, and to a theoretical detection rate of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPS; 5 chromosomes). RESULTS: Of the 885 cases of CHD, 111 (12.5%) clinically significant variants were detected, with no significant difference between the 498 prenatal and the 387 postnatal cases (10.8% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.08). In both groups, the detection rate was significantly higher for non-isolated vs. isolated CHD (76/339 = 22.4% vs. 35/546 = 6.4%, respectively, p < 0.05). The detection rate was higher than the background risk in both groups, including cases of postnatal isolated CHD. 44% of abnormal findings in the prenatal setting would be detectable by NIPS. CONCLUSION: CMA should be performed for both prenatally and postnatally detected CHD, including postnatal cases of isolated CHD, while NIPS can be considered in specific scenarios.

Challenges in variant interpretation in prenatal exome sequencing.

The use of exome sequencing (ES) in the prenatal setting improves the diagnostic yield of genetic testing for fetuses with ultrasound anomalies. However, while the purpose of ES is to explain the fetal phenotype, secondary or incidental findings unrelated to the observed abnormalities might be detected. Recently, requests for ES in fetuses with no sonographic abnormalities have been increasing, raising serious ethical and medico-legal concerns. Variant interpretation is complex even in the postnatal setting and performing broad genomic data analyses in the prenatal setting presents additional dilemmas. This article discusses challenges and questions related to prenatal ES, including variant interpretation of incidental findings in cases of indicated prenatal ES, as well as in situations where ES is performed in asymptomatic fetuses.

The yield of chromosomal microarray analysis among pregnancies terminated due to fetal malformations.

BACKGROUND: Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is preferred for genetic work-up when fetal malformations are detected prenatally. OBJECTIVES: To assess the detection rate of CMA after pregnancy termination due to abnormal ultrasound findings. METHODS: CMA was successfully performed in 71 pregnancies using fetal DNA (mainly from skin) or placenta. Data regarding clinical background, pregnancy work-up, and CMA were analyzed. RESULTS: Findings were abnormal in 17 cases (23.9%), of which 13 were detectable by karyotype. The incremental yield of CMA was 4/71 (5.6%); 1/32 (3.1%) for cases with an isolated anomaly and 3/39 (7.7%) for cases with nonisolated anomalies. CONCLUSIONS: CMA yield from terminated pregnancies was 23.9%. Although most chromosomal abnormalities are detectable by karyotype, CMA does not require viable dividing cells; hence, it is more practical for work-up after termination. In most cases, the diagnosis was followed by consultation regarding the risk of recurrence and recommendations for testing in subsequent pregnancies.

Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Pregnancies With Corpus Callosum or Posterior Fossa Anomalies.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the detection rate of clinically significant chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) results in pregnancies with sonographic diagnosis of fetal corpus callosum anomalies (CCA) or posterior fossa anomalies (PFA). METHODS: All CMA tests in pregnancies with CCA or PFA performed between January 2015 and June 2020 were retrospectively evaluated from the Israeli Ministry of Health database. The rate of CMA with clinically significant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) findings was calculated and compared to a local Israeli cohort of 5,541 pregnancies with normal ultrasound. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-two pregnancies were enrolled: 102 cases with CCA and 89 with PFA (9 cases had both). Clinically significant CMA results were found in 7/102 of CCA (6.9%) and in 7/89 of PFA (7.9%) cases. The CMA detection rate in pregnancies with isolated CCA (2/57, 3.5%) or PFA (2/50, 4.0%) was lower than in nonisolated cases, including additional CNS and/or extra-CNS sonographic anomalies (CCA-5/45, 11.1%; PFA-5/39, 12.8%), but this was not statistically significant. However, the rate among pregnancies that had extra-CNS anomalies, with or without additional CNS involvement (CCA-5/24, 20.8%; PFA-5/29, 17.2%), was significantly higher compared to all other cases (p = 0.0075 for CCA; p = 0.035 for PFA). Risk of CMA with clinically significant results for all and nonisolated CCA or PFA pregnancies was higher compared to the background risk reported in the control cohort (p < 0.001), but was not significant for isolated cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that CMA testing is beneficial for the genetic workup of pregnancies with CCA or PFA, and is probably most informative when additional extra-CNS anomalies are observed.

The diagnostic potential of targeted imaging of the fetal pancreas.

OBJECTIVE: To report our experience with targeted scans of the fetal pancreas. METHODS: Targeted scans were performed in 16 cases referred for anatomical or genetic conditions associated with structural pancreatic malformations. RESULTS: Four fetuses were evaluated for nephromegaly and macroglossia. In three of them, the pancreas circumference was >90th percentile. Genetic testing revealed Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. In the fourth case, the pancreas circumference was normal; exome sequencing revealed two heterozygous ETFDH gene mutations consistent with glutaric acidemia type II. In a case referred for non-visualization of the gallbladder, the fetal pancreas was not visualized and genetic analysis revealed a mutation in the ONECUT1 gene encoding for HNF6. Targeted scan for heterotaxia revealed three cases with variable degrees of agenesis of the pancreas, one case with a normally structured right sided pancreas and one case with a normal pancreas. Cases referred following a genetic diagnosis included a case of maternal nesidioblastosis with an extremely large fetal pancreas; and five fetuses diagnosed with a TCF2 deletion all with a normal pancreas. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal assessment of the fetal pancreas may be a significant factor in prenatal diagnosis and counselling in cases presenting with anatomical and genetic conditions reported post-natally to be associated with pancreatic structural and functional abnormalities.

The diagnostic efficacy of exome data analysis using fixed neurodevelopmental gene lists: Implications for prenatal setting.

OBJECTIVE: Laboratories performing prenatal exome sequencing (ES) frequently limit analysis to predetermined gene lists. We used a diagnostic postnatal ES cohort to assess how many of the genes diagnosed are not included in a number of select fixed lists used for prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: Of 601 postnatal ES tests, pathogenic variants related to neurodevelopmental disorders were detected in 138 probands. We evaluated if causative genes were present in the following: (1) Developmental Disorders Genotype-Phenotype database list, (2) a commercial laboratory list for prenatal ES, (3) the PanelApp fetal anomalies panel, and (4) a published list used for prenatal diagnosis by ES (Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes study). RESULTS: The percentages of cases where the diagnosed gene was not included in the selected four lists were; 11.6%, 17.24%, 23.2%, and 10.9%, respectively. In 13/138 (9.4%) cases, the causative gene was not included in any of the lists; in 4/13 (∼30%) cases noninclusion was explained by a relatively recent discovery of gene-phenotype association. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of genes related to neurocognitive phenotypes are not included in some of the lists used for prenatal ES data interpretation. These are not only genes related to recently discovered disorders, but also genes with well-established gene-phenotype.

When phenotype does not match genotype: importance of "real-time" refining of phenotypic information for exome data interpretation.

PURPOSE: Clinical data provided to genetic testing laboratories are frequently scarce. Our purpose was to evaluate clinical scenarios where phenotypic refinement in proband's family members might impact exome data interpretation. METHODS: Of 614 exomes, 209 were diagnostic and included in this study. Phenotypic information was gathered by the variant interpretation team from genetic counseling letters and images. If a discrepancy between reported clinical findings and presumably disease-causing variant segregation was observed, referring clinicians were contacted for phenotypic clarification. RESULTS: In 16/209 (7.7%) cases, phenotypic refinement was important due to (1) lack of cosegregation of disease-causing variant with the reported phenotype; (2) identification of different disorders with overlapping symptoms in the same family; (3) similar features in proband and family members, but molecular cause identified in proband only; and (4) previously unrecognized maternal condition causative of child's phenotype. As a result of phenotypic clarification, in 12/16 (75%) cases definition of affected versus unaffected status in one of the family members has changed, and in one case variant classification has changed. CONCLUSION: Detailed description of phenotypes in family members including differences in clinical presentations, even if subtle, are important in exome interpretation and should be communicated to the variant interpretation team.

Chromosomal microarray should be performed for cases of fetal short long bones detected prenatally.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of pathogenic and likely-pathogenic variants detected by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), among pregnancies with fetal short long bones diagnosed by ultrasound. METHODS: The study cohort was based on cases of chromosomal microarray analyses performed nationwide for the indication of short long bones. RESULTS: CMA was performed in 66 cases of short long bones. There were 4 cases with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic result (6%). The rate of chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher compared to the background risk for copy number variations (CNVs) in pregnancies with no sonographic anomalies (P < 0.001). The yield of CMA in our cohort was significantly higher for both isolated and non-isolated cases, for cases in which the lowest estimated bone length percentile was above the 3rd percentile (below 5th percentile), and for cases diagnosed with short long bones after 22 weeks but not for cases diagnosed after 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: The yield of CMA in cases with short long bones (both isolated and non-isolated) is significantly higher than the background risk for chromosomal anomalies in pregnancies with no sonographic anomalies. This suggests that CMA should be offered in pregnancies with a diagnosis of fetal short long bones.

The Yield of Chromosomal Microarray in Pregnancies Complicated with Fetal Growth Restriction Can Be Predicted According to Clinical Parameters.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the yield of chromosomal microarray analysis in pregnancies complicated with fetal growth restriction (FGR) according to specific clinical parameters. METHODS: The study was based on national records from the Israeli Ministry of Health. Chromosomal microarray analyses of amniocenteses performed nationwide for the indication of FGR, from January 2016 to March 2018, were included. The CMA yield was compared to 2 cohorts that reported the background risk. RESULTS: Of 174 tests performed for the indication of FGR, there were 11 cases with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic result (6.3%). The yield of CMA was significantly higher in cases with major structural findings (29.4 vs. 3.4%, p = 0.001), compared to isolated FGR but not for minor structural findings (6.1 vs. 3.4%, p = 0.5). The rate of chromosomal aberrations was significantly higher for all cases with FGR, when compared to the background risk of a cohort of normal pregnancies (odds ratio [OR] 4.7, 95% CI 2.5-9 and OR 6.09, 95% CI 3.2-11.4) but not for isolated cases or cases diagnosed after 24 weeks of pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Chromosomal microarray analysis should be performed for all pregnancies complicated with FGR diagnosed before 24 weeks and for cases with major structural anomalies.

Should We Report 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 Deletions and Duplications in the Prenatal Setting?

Copy number variations of the 15q11.2 region at breakpoints 1-2 (BP1-BP2) have been associated with variable phenotypes and low penetrance. Detection of such variations in the prenatal setting can result in significant parental anxiety. The clinical significance of pre- and postnatally detected 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletions and duplications was assessed. Of 11,004 chromosomal microarray tests performed in a single referral lab (7596 prenatal, 3408 postnatal), deletions were detected in 66 cases: 39 in prenatal tests (0.51%) and 27 in postnatal tests (0.79%). Duplications were detected in 94 cases: 62 prenatal tests (0.82%) and 32 postnatal tests (0.94%). The prevalence of deletions and duplications among clinically indicated prenatal tests (0.57% and 0.9%, respectively) did not differ significantly in comparison to unindicated tests (0.49% and 0.78%, respectively). The prevalence of deletions and duplications among postnatal tests performed for clinical indications was similar to the prevalence in healthy individuals (0.73% and 1% vs. 0.98% and 0.74%, respectively). The calculated penetrance of deletions and duplications over the background risk was 2.18% and 1.16%, respectively. We conclude that the pathogenicity of 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletions and duplications is low. Opting out the report of these copy number variations to both clinicians and couples should be considered.

Teaching clinicians practical genomic medicine: 7 years' experience in a tertiary care center.

PURPOSE: Increased implementation of complex genetic technologies in clinical practice emphasizes the urgency of genomic literacy and proficiency for medical professionals. We evaluated our genomic education model. METHODS: We assessed the 5-day, extended format program, encompassing lectures, videos, interactive tests, practice cases, and clinical exercises. Pre- and post questionnaires assessed knowledge change, using t-tests to compare groups. Satisfaction on program completion and after 3 years were evaluated. Implementation in other centers determined acceptability. RESULTS: During 2012-2018, 774 clinicians from multiple disciplines and career stages attended 35 programs; 334 (43%) attended the 5-day extended format. Evaluations showed significant improvement of genomic literacy (mean 15.05/100 points, p < 0.001). Residents initially had higher scores than specialists (pre: 66.3 ± 17.3 vs. 58.7 ± 16.6, respectively, p = 0.002); both significantly improved, with specialists "catching up" (post: 79.1 ± 17.2 vs. 75.7 ± 15.9, nonsignificant (NS)); there was a similar trend between fellows and subspecialists (pre: 70 ± 18 vs. 59.4 ± 16.4, respectively, p = 0.007; post: 78.6 ± 16.4 vs. 73.2 ± 17.7, respectively, NS). Younger specialists (≤10 years residency) had significantly higher pre- and post scores. Absolute improvement in scores did not depend on medical specialties. CONCLUSION: Our program is effective in improving genomics literacy for clinicians, irrespective of career length or expertise, and could be a model for improving skills in practical genomics for all medical professionals.