Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of chromosomal aneuploidies and copy number variants that are associated with fetal structural anomalies has substantial value. Although whole-exome sequencing (WES) has been applied to case series of a few selected prenatal cases, its value in routine clinical settings has not been prospectively assessed in a large unselected cohort of fetuses with structural anomalies. We therefore aimed to determine the incremental diagnostic yield (ie, the added value) of WES following uninformative results of standard investigations with karyotype testing and chromosomal microarray in an unselected cohort of sequential pregnancies showing fetal structural anomalies. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the parents of fetuses who were found to have a structural anomaly in a prenatal ultrasound were screened for possible participation in the study. These participants were predominantly identified in or were referred to the Columbia University Carmen and John Thain Center for Prenatal Pediatrics (New York, NY, USA). Fetuses with confirmed aneuploidy or a causal pathogenic copy number variant were excluded from WES analyses. By use of WES of the fetuses and parents (parent-fetus trios), we identified genetic variants that indicated an underlying cause (diagnostic genetic variants) and genetic variants that met the criteria of bioinformatic signatures that had previously been described to be significantly enriched among diagnostic genetic variants. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2015, and April 19, 2017, 517 sequentially identified pregnant women found to have fetuses with a structural anomaly were screened for their eligibility for inclusion in our study. 71 (14%) couples declined testing, 87 (17%) trios were missing at least one DNA sample (from either parent or the fetus), 69 (13%) trios had a clinically relevant abnormal karyotype or chromosomal microarray finding, 51 (10%) couples did not consent to WES or withdrew consent, and five (1%) samples were not of good enough quality for analysis. DNA samples from 234 (45%) eligible trios were therefore used for analysis of the primary outcome. By use of trio sequence data, we identified diagnostic genetic variants in 24 (10%) families. Mutations with bioinformatic signatures that were indicative of pathogenicity but with insufficient evidence to be considered diagnostic were also evaluated; 46 (20%) of the 234 fetuses assessed were found to have such signatures. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis of WES data in a prospective cohort of unselected fetuses with structural anomalies shows the value added by WES following the use of routine genetic tests. Our findings suggest that, in cases of fetal anomalies in which assessment with karyotype testing and chromosomal microarray fail to determine the underlying cause of a structural anomaly, WES can add clinically relevant information that could assist current management of a pregnancy. The unique challenges of WES-based prenatal diagnostics require analysis by a multidisciplinary team of perinatal practitioners and laboratory specialists. FUNDING: Institute for Genomic Medicine (Columbia University Irving Medical Center).

Developing a conceptual, reproducible, rubric-based approach to consent and result disclosure for genetic testing by clinicians with minimal genetics background.

PURPOSE: In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians. METHODS: We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics. RESULTS: Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a "typical" patient. CONCLUSION: We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.

Detection of triploid, molar, and vanishing twin pregnancies by a single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal test.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the ability of single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to identify triploid, unrecognized twin, and vanishing twin pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: The study included 30,795 consecutive reported clinical cases received for NIPT for fetal whole-chromosome aneuploidies; known multiple gestations were excluded. Cell-free DNA was isolated from maternal blood samples, amplified via 19,488-plex polymerase chain reaction, and sequenced. Sequencing results were analyzed to determine fetal chromosome copy number and to identify the presence of additional fetal haplotypes. RESULTS: Additional fetal haplotypes, indicative of fetal triploidy, vanishing twin, or undetected twin pregnancy, were identified in 130 (0.42%) cases. Clinical confirmation (karyotype for singleton pregnancies, ultrasound for multifetal pregnancies) was available for 58.5% (76/130) of cases. Of the 76 cases with confirmation, 42.1% were vanishing twin, 48.7% were viable twin, 5.3% were diandric triploids, and 3.9% were nontriploid pregnancies that lacked evidence of co-twin demise. One pregnancy had other indications suggesting triploidy but lacked karyotype confirmation. Of the 5 vanishing twin cases with a known date of demise, 100% of losses occurred in the first trimester; up to 8 weeks elapsed between loss and detection by NIPT. CONCLUSION: This single-nucleotide polymorphism-based NIPT successfully identified vanished twin, previously unrecognized twin, and triploid pregnancies. As vanishing twins are more likely to be aneuploid, and undetected residual cell-free DNA could bias NIPT results, the ability of this method to identify additional fetal haplotypes is expected to result in fewer false-positive calls and prevent incorrect fetal sex calls.

Expanding the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing: detection of fetal microdeletion syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the performance of a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based noninvasive prenatal test for 5 microdeletion syndromes. STUDY DESIGN: Four hundred sixty-nine samples (358 plasma samples from pregnant women, 111 artificial plasma mixtures) were amplified with the use of a massively multiplexed polymerase chain reaction, sequenced, and analyzed with the use of the Next-generation Aneuploidy Test Using SNPs algorithm for the presence or absence of deletions of 22q11.2, 1p36, distal 5p, and the Prader-Willi/Angelman region. RESULTS: Detection rates were 97.8% for a 22q11.2 deletion (45/46) and 100% for Prader-Willi (15/15), Angelman (21/21), 1p36 deletion (1/1), and cri-du-chat syndromes (24/24). False-positive rates were 0.76% for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (3/397) and 0.24% for cri-du-chat syndrome (1/419). No false positives occurred for Prader-Willi (0/428), Angelman (0/442), or 1p36 deletion syndromes (0/422). CONCLUSION: SNP-based noninvasive prenatal microdeletion screening is highly accurate. Because clinically relevant microdeletions and duplications occur in >1% of pregnancies, regardless of maternal age, noninvasive screening for the general pregnant population should be considered.

Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to report on laboratory and clinical experience following 6 months of clinical implementation of a single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy test in high- and low-risk women. STUDY DESIGN: All samples received from March through September 2013 and drawn ≥9 weeks' gestation were included. Samples that passed quality control were analyzed for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and monosomy X. Results were reported as high or low risk for fetal aneuploidy for each interrogated chromosome. Relationships between fetal fraction and gestational age and maternal weight were analyzed. Follow-up on outcome was sought for a subset of high-risk cases. False-negative results were reported voluntarily by providers. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated from cases with an available prenatal or postnatal karyotype or clinical evaluation at birth. RESULTS: Samples were received from 31,030 patients, 30,705 met study criteria, and 28,739 passed quality-control metrics and received a report detailing aneuploidy risk. Fetal fraction correlated positively with gestational age, and negatively with maternal weight. In all, 507 patients received a high-risk result for any of the 4 tested conditions (324 trisomy 21, 82 trisomy 18, 41 trisomy 13, 61 monosomy X; including 1 double aneuploidy case). Within the 17,885 cases included in follow-up analysis, 356 were high risk, and outcome information revealed 184 (51.7%) true positives, 38 (10.7%) false positives, 19 (5.3%) with ultrasound findings suggestive of aneuploidy, 36 (10.1%) spontaneous abortions without karyotype confirmation, 22 (6.2%) terminations without karyotype confirmation, and 57 (16.0%) lost to follow-up. This yielded an 82.9% PPV for all aneuploidies, and a 90.9% PPV for trisomy 21. The overall PPV for women aged ≥35 years was similar to the PPV for women aged <35 years. Two patients were reported as false negatives. CONCLUSION: The data from this large-scale report on clinical application of a commercially available noninvasive prenatal test suggest that the clinical performance of this single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal test in a mixed high- and low-risk population is consistent with performance in validation studies.

Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications.

BACKGROUND: Genetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients. METHODS: The Clinical Genome Resource's (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus. RESULTS: Communication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing). CONCLUSIONS: The CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Traditional Prenatal Diagnosis: Past to Present.

In the nearly 60 years since prenatal diagnosis for genetic disease was first offered, the field of prenatal diagnosis has progressed far past rudimentary uterine puncture to provide fetal material to assess gender and interpret risk. Concurrent with the improvements in invasive fetal sampling came technological advances in cytogenetics and molecular biology that widened both the scope of genetic disorders that could be diagnosed and also the resolution at which the human genome could be interrogated. Nowadays, routine blood work available to all pregnant women can determine the risk for common chromosome abnormalities; chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis can be used to diagnose nearly all conditions with a known genetic cause; and the genome and/or exome of a fetus with multiple anomalies can be sequenced in an attempt to determine the underlying etiology. This chapter will discuss some of the major advances in prenatal sampling and prenatal diagnostic laboratory techniques that have occurred over the past six decades.

The Use of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis.

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) identifies microdeletions and duplications undetected on karyotype analysis. Copy number variants (CNVs) occur in 1% to 1.7% of all pregnancies, with clinical implications. All women undergoing invasive testing for routine indications should be offered microarray. Clinically significant CNVs are seen in approximately 6% of pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies, making CMAs the current standard of cytogenomic analysis. Clinicians should be familiar with different technologies and laboratory reporting practices. Pretest counseling is imperative and, when CMA results are abnormal, posttest counseling should be in-depth and conducted by a genetic counselor or clinical geneticist.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening in a high-risk and low-risk cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate performance of a single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screen for fetal aneuploidy in high-risk and low-risk populations on single venopuncture. METHODS: One thousand sixty-four maternal blood samples from 7 weeks of gestation and beyond were included; 1,051 were within specifications and 518 (49.3%) were low risk. Cell-free DNA was amplified, sequenced, and analyzed using the Next-generation Aneuploidy Test Using SNPs algorithm. Samples were called as trisomies 21, 18, 13, or monosomy X, or euploid, and male or female. RESULTS: Nine hundred sixty-six samples (91.9%) successfully generated a cell-free DNA result. Among these, sensitivity was 100% for trisomy 21 (58/58, confidence interval [CI] 93.8-100%), trisomy 13 (12/12, CI 73.5-100%), and fetal sex (358/358 female, CI 99.0-100%; 418/418 male, CI 99.1-100%), 96.0% for trisomy 18 (24/25, CI 79.7-99.9%), and 90% for monosomy X (9/10, CI 55.5-99.8%). Specificity for trisomies 21 and 13 was 100% (905/905, CI 99.6-100%; and 953/953, CI 99.6-100%, respectively) and for trisomy 18 and monosomy X was 99.9% (938/939, CI 99.4-100%; and 953/954, CI 99.4-100%, respectively). However, 16% (20/125) of aneuploid samples did not return a result; 50% (10/20) had a fetal fraction below the 1.5th percentile of euploid pregnancies. Aneuploidy rate was significantly higher in these samples (P<.001, odds ratio 9.2, CI 4.4-19.0). Sensitivity and specificity did not differ in low-risk and high-risk populations. CONCLUSIONS: This noninvasive prenatal screen performed with high sensitivity and specificity in high-risk and low-risk cohorts. Aneuploid samples were significantly more likely to not return a result; the number of aneuploidy samples was especially increased among samples with low fetal fraction. This underscores the importance of redraws or, in rare cases, invasive procedures based on low fetal fraction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.