Expanding Access to Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis for Monogenic Conditions to Consanguineous Families.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free fetal DNA exists within the maternal bloodstream during pregnancy and provides a means for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD). Our accredited clinical service offers definitive NIPD for several autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked conditions using relative haplotype dosage analysis (RHDO). RHDO involves next-generation sequencing (NGS) of thousands of common single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) surrounding the gene of interest in the parents and an affected or unaffected offspring to conduct haplotype phasing of the high- and low-risk alleles. NGS is carried out in parallel on the maternal cell-free DNA, and fetal inheritance is predicted using sensitive dosage calculations performed at sites where the parental genotypes differ. RHDO is not currently offered to consanguineous couples owing to the shared haplotype between parents. Here we test the expansion of RHDO for AR monogenic conditions to include consanguineous couples. METHODS: The existing sequential probability ratio test analysis pipeline was modified to apply to SNPs where both parents are heterozygous for the same genotype. Quality control thresholds were developed using 33 nonconsanguineous cases. The performance of the adapted RHDO pipeline was tested on 8 consanguineous cases. RESULTS: The correct fetal genotype was predicted by our revised RHDO approach in all conclusive cases with known genotypes (n = 5). Haplotype block classification accuracies of 94.5% and 93.9% were obtained for the nonconsanguineous and consanguineous case cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified RHDO pipeline correctly predicts the genotype in fetuses from consanguineous families, allowing the potential to expand access to NIPD services for these families.

Current controversy in prenatal diagnosis: The use of cfDNA to screen for monogenic conditions in low risk populations is ready for clinical use.

Noninvasive cfDNA testing for monogenic disorders (sgNIPT) has become integrated into the care of pregnant women at increased risk based on carrier status, known family history, or ultrasound anomalies. The availability of commercial tests for common autosomal recessive and de novo autosomal dominant conditions has led to the use of these tests in low-risk pregnancies. However, is the technology ready for use in this low-risk population? This report is a summary of the debate on this topic at the 27th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy. Both expert debaters provided strong arguments in favor and against the use of sgNIPT in low-risk pregnancies. The argument in favor of sgNIPT for autosomal recessive conditions is that it allows the identification of affected pregnancies without the need for involving the partner in testing. Arguments for sgNIPT for autosomal dominant conditions include identification of affected fetuses that would have either presented later in pregnancy with fetal anomalies or not been detected prenatally given normal ultrasounds, respect for patient autonomy and patient desire for information. Strong arguments were made against offering sgNIPT screening. Given that traditional carrier screening for recessive conditions can be carried out in many jurisdictions, the added value of sgNIPT has not been clearly demonstrated. Arguments against sgNIPT for autosomal dominant conditions included the total lack of clinical validation studies and the risk of false reassurance in cases of negative results and unnecessary invasive procedures in cases of false positive results. Although there is a desire to take advantage of new technologies to improve the detection of monogenic disorders in low-risk populations, based on the discussion and the audience vote, it appears premature to offer sgNIPT to all low risk pregnant women. Further clinical validation studies are needed prior to broad implementation.

'Something that helped the whole picture': Experiences of parents offered rapid prenatal exome sequencing in routine clinical care in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: In October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England. This study aimed to explore parent experiences and their information and support needs from the perspective of parents offered pES and of health professionals involved in its delivery. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 women and 6 male partners and 63 fetal medicine and genetic health professionals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall views about pES were positive and parents were grateful to be offered the test. Highlighted benefits of pES included the value of the additional information for pregnancy management and planning for future pregnancies. An anxious wait for results was common, often associated with the need to make decisions near to 24 weeks in pregnancy when there are legal restrictions for late termination. Descriptions of dealing with uncertainty were also common, even when results had been returned. Many parents described pES results as informing decision-making around whether or not to terminate pregnancy. Some professionals were concerned that a non-informative result could be overly reassuring and highlighted that careful counselling was needed to ensure parents have a good understanding of what the result means for their pregnancy. Emotional support from professionals was valued; however, some parents felt that post-test support was lacking. CONCLUSION: Parents and professionals welcomed the introduction of pES. Results inform parents' decision-making around the termination of pregnancy. When there are no diagnostic findings or uncertain findings from pES, personalised counselling that considers scans and other tests are crucial. Directing parents to reliable online sources of information and providing emotional support throughout could improve their experiences of care.

Monogenic conditions and central nervous system anomalies: A prospective study, systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the incremental diagnostic yield of prenatal exome sequencing (pES) over chromosome microarray (CMA) or G-banding karyotype in fetuses with central nervous system (CNS) abnormalities. METHODS: Data were collected via electronic searches from January 2010 to April 2022 in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE. The NHS England prenatal exome cohort was also included. Incremental yield was calculated as a pooled value using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included (n = 1583 cases). The incremental yield with pES for any CNS anomaly was 32% [95%CI 27%-36%; I2 = 72%]. Subgroup analysis revealed apparent incremental yields in; (a) isolated CNS anomalies; 27% [95%CI 19%-34%; I2 = 74%]; (b) single CNS anomaly; 16% [95% CI 10%-23%; I2 = 41%]; (c) more than one CNS anomaly; 31% [95% Cl 21%-40%; I2 = 56%]; and (d) the anatomical subtype with the most optimal yield was Type 1 malformation of cortical development, related to abnormal cell proliferation or apoptosis, incorporating microcephalies, megalencephalies and dysplasia; 40% (22%-57%; I2 = 68%). The commonest syndromes in isolated cases were Lissencephaly 3 and X-linked hydrocephalus. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal exome sequencing provides a high incremental diagnostic yield in fetuses with CNS abnormalities with optimal yields in cases with multiple CNS anomalies, particularly those affecting the midline, posterior fossa and cortex.

Variability in Fetal Fraction Estimation: Comparing Fetal Fractions Reported by Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Providers Globally.

BACKGROUND: Fetal fraction (FF) measurement is considered important for reliable noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Using minimal FF threshold as a quality parameter is under debate. We evaluated the variability in reported FFs of individual samples between providers and laboratories and within a single laboratory. METHODS: Genomic quality assessment and European Molecular Genetics Quality Network provide joint proficiency testing for NIPT. We compared reported FFs across all laboratories and stratified according to test methodologies. A single sample was sequenced repeatedly and FF estimated by 2 bioinformatics methods: Veriseq2 and SeqFF. Finally, we compared FFs by Veriseq and SeqFF in 87 351 NIPT samples. RESULTS: For each proficiency test sample we observed a large variability in reported FF, SDs and CVs ranging from 1.7 to 3.6 and 17.0 to 35.8, respectively. FF measurements reported by single nucleotide polymorphism-based methods had smaller SDs (0.5 to 2.4) compared to whole genome sequencing-based methods (1.8 to 2.9). In the internal quality assessment, SDs were similar between SeqFF (SD 1.0) and Veriseq v2 (SD 0.9), but mean FF by Veriseq v2 was higher compared to SeqFF (9.0 vs 6.4, P 0.001). In patient samples, reported FFs were on average 1.12-points higher in Veriseq than in SeqFF (P 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Current methods do not allow for a reliable and consistent FF estimation. Our data show estimated FF should be regarded as a laboratory-specific range, rather than a precise number. Applying strict universal minimum thresholds might result in unnecessary test failures and should be used with caution.

Should we offer prenatal exome sequencing for intrauterine growth restriction or short long bones? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the incremental yield of prenatal exome sequencing over chromosomal microarray or G-banding karyotype in fetuses with: (1) intrauterine growth restriction related to placental insufficiency or (2) short long bones, in isolated and nonisolated instances for both scenarios. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected via electronic searches for relevant citations from January 2010 to April 10, 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane, and using relevant bibliographies and data generated in-house. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included were prospective or retrospective cohort studies and/or case series with: (1) n>5 cases of short long bones and/or intrauterine growth restriction undergoing prenatal sequencing with a clearly defined phenotype including assessment of placental function; (2) testing based on prenatal phenotype only; (3) a nondiagnostic chromosomal microarray/karyotype; and (4) known results of genetic testing. METHODS: Incremental yield was calculated for each study and as a pooled value for the aforementioned groups using a random-effects model. Results were displayed in forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed statistically using Higgins' I2. Publication bias was assessed graphically using funnel plots. Quality assessment was performed using modified Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number CRD42022324680). RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included (n=452 cases). The apparent incremental yields with prenatal sequencing were: (1) 4% (95% confidence interval, -5.0 to 12; I2=0%) in isolated intrauterine growth restriction with evidence of placental insufficiency, (2) 30% (95% confidence interval, 13-47; I2=1%) in intrauterine growth restriction with additional structural anomalies, (3) 48% (95% confidence interval, 26-70; I2=73%) in isolated short long bones, and (4) 68% (95% confidence interval, 58-77; I2=51%) in short long bones with additional skeletal anomalies. Of the 37 short long bone cases with a diagnosis, 32 had a skeletal dysplasia, with thanatophoric dysplasia and osteogenesis imperfecta being the most common (both 21.6% [n=8/37]). In fetuses with short long bones and additional skeletal features, osteogenesis imperfecta was the most common diagnosis (28% [n=57/204]). Where documented, the inheritance patterns were de novo in 75.4% (n=150) of cases. CONCLUSION: Prenatal sequencing adds substantially to incremental yield over chromosomal microarray in fetuses with short long bones or multisystem intrauterine growth restriction. Robust studies are required to assess the utility of fetal sequencing in isolated intrauterine growth restriction with evidence of placental insufficiency, which cannot be recommended on the basis of current evidence.

Non-invasive fetal genotyping for maternal alleles with droplet digital PCR: A comparative study of analytical approaches.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a flexible droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) workflow to perform non-invasive prenatal diagnosis via relative mutation dosage (RMD) for maternal pathogenic variants with a range of inheritance patterns, and to compare the accuracy of multiple analytical approaches. METHODS: Cell free DNA (cfDNA) was tested from 124 archived maternal plasma samples: 88 cases for sickle cell disease and 36 for rare Mendelian conditions. Three analytical methods were compared: sequential probability ratio testing (SPRT), Bayesian and z-score analyses. RESULTS: The SPRT, Bayesian and z-score analyses performed similarly well with correct prediction rates of 96%, 97% and 98%, respectively. However, there were high rates of inconclusive results for each cohort, particularly for z-score analysis which was 31% overall. Two samples were incorrectly classified by all three analytical methods; a false negative result predicted for a fetus affected with sickle cell disease and a false positive result predicting the presence of an X-linked IDS variant in an unaffected fetus. CONCLUSIONS: ddPCR can be applied to RMD for diverse conditions and inheritance patterns, but all methods carry a small risk of erroneous results. Further evaluation is required both to reduce the rate of inconclusive results and explore discordant results in more detail.

Decision-making, attitudes, and understanding among patients and relatives invited to undergo genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project: A multisite survey study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess decisions, attitudes, and understanding of participants (patients, parents, relatives) having genome sequencing for rare disease diagnosis. METHODS: This study involved a cross-sectional observational survey with participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 51% (504/978). Most participants self-reported that they had decided to undergo genome sequencing (94%) and that this was an informed decision (84%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Most self-reported that they had chosen to receive additional findings (88%) and that this was an informed decision (89%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Participants were motivated more by the desire to help others via research than by the belief it would help them obtain a diagnosis (Z = 14.23, P = 5.75 × 10-46), although both motivations were high. Concerns were relatively few but, where expressed, were more about the potential psychological impact of results than data sharing/access (Z = 9.61, P = 7.65 × 10-22). Concerns were higher among male, Asian or Asian British, and more religious participants. General and context-specific understanding of genome sequencing were both moderately high (means 5.2/9.0 and 22.5/28.0, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings are useful to inform consent guidelines and clinical implementation of genome sequencing.

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD): how analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma has changed prenatal diagnosis for monogenic disorders.

Cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) is released into the maternal circulation from trophoblastic cells during pregnancy, is detectable from 4 weeks and is representative of the entire fetal genome. The presence of this cffDNA in the maternal bloodstream has enabled clinical implementation of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for monogenic disorders. Detection of paternally inherited and de novo mutations is relatively straightforward, and several methods have been developed for clinical use, including quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and PCR followed by restriction enzyme digest (PCR-RED) or next-generation sequencing (NGS). A greater challenge has been in the detection of maternally inherited variants owing to the high background of maternal cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Molecular counting techniques have been developed to measure subtle changes in allele frequency. For instance, relative haplotype dosage analysis (RHDO), which uses single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for phasing of high- and low-risk alleles, is clinically available for several monogenic disorders. A major drawback is that RHDO requires samples from both parents and an affected or unaffected proband, therefore alternative methods, such as proband-free RHDO and relative mutation dosage (RMD), are being investigated. cffDNA was thought to exist only as short fragments (<500 bp); however, long-read sequencing technologies have recently revealed a range of sizes up to ∼23 kb. cffDNA also carries a specific placental epigenetic mark, and so fragmentomics and epigenetics are of interest for targeted enrichment of cffDNA. Cell-based NIPD approaches are also currently under investigation as a means to obtain a pure source of intact fetal genomic DNA.

Diagnostic yield of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies, where karyotype/chromosomal microarray (CMA) is normal. METHODS: Following electronic searches of four databases, we included studies with ≥10 structurally abnormal fetuses undergoing ES or whole genome sequencing. The incremental diagnostic yield of ES over CMA/karyotype was calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis. Sub-group analyses investigated effects of case selection and fetal phenotype on diagnostic yield. RESULTS: We identified 72 reports from 66 studies, representing 4350 fetuses. The pooled incremental yield of ES was 31% (95% confidence interval (CI) 26%-36%, p < 0.0001). Diagnostic yield was significantly higher for cases pre-selected for likelihood of monogenic aetiology compared to unselected cases (42% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001). Diagnostic yield differed significantly between phenotypic sub-groups, ranging from 53% (95% CI 42%-63%, p < 0.0001) for isolated skeletal abnormalities, to 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, p = 0.04) for isolated increased nuchal translucency. CONCLUSION: Prenatal ES provides a diagnosis in an additional 31% of structurally abnormal fetuses when CMA/karyotype is non-diagnostic. The expected diagnostic yield depends on the body system(s) affected and can be optimised by pre-selection of cases following multi-disciplinary review to determine that a monogenic cause is likely.

International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis Updated Position Statement on the use of genome-wide sequencing for prenatal diagnosis.

The research and clinical use of genome-wide sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses at risk for genetic disorders have rapidly increased in recent years. Current data indicate that the diagnostic rate is comparable and for certain indications higher than that of standard testing by karyotype and chromosomal microarray. Responsible clinical implementation and diagnostic use of prenatal sequencing depends on standardized laboratory practices and detailed pre-test and post-test counseling. This Updated Position Statement on behalf of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis recommends best practices for the clinical use of prenatal exome and genome sequencing from an international perspective. We include several new points for consideration by researchers and clinical service and laboratory providers.

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 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.

Implementing a rapid fetal exome sequencing service: What do parents and health professionals think?

OBJECTIVES: Prenatal exome sequencing (pES) for the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities is being introduced more widely in clinical practice. Here we explore parents' and professionals' views and experiences of pES, to identify perceived benefits, concerns, and support needs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 parents and 20 health professionals (fetal medicine and clinical genetics) with experience of rapid pES prior to implementation in the English National Health Service. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Parents and professionals were largely positive about pES, emphasising clinical and psychosocial benefits of a timely, definitive diagnosis in pregnancy. Concerns included parental anxiety related to the timing of pES results or uncertain findings, a need for guidelines for case selection and reporting, and ensuring sufficient capacity for counselling, phenotyping and variant interpretation. Professionals were concerned non-genetics professionals may not be equipped to counsel parents on the complexities of pES. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight important issues for clinical implementation of pES. Expert counselling is required to enable parents to make informed decisions during a stressful time. To achieve this, professionals need further education and training, and fetal medicine and genetics services must work closely together to ensure parental understanding and appropriate support.

What's out there for parents? A systematic review of online information about prenatal microarray and exome sequencing.

OBJECTIVE: To identify what online patient information (presented in English) is available to parents about prenatal microarray (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES), and evaluate its content, quality, and readability. METHOD: Systematic searches (Google and Bing) were conducted, and websites were categorised according to their purpose. Websites categorised as patient information were included if they were: in English, directed at patients, or were a text, video, or online version of an information leaflet. Author-developed content checklists, the DISCERN Genetics tool, and readability tests (the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Gunning Fog Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index) were then used to assess those sources of patient information. RESULTS: Of the 665 websites screened, 18 met the criteria. A further 8 sources were found through a targeted search of professional organisations, resulting in 26 sources available for further evaluation. In general, this was found to be low in quality, omitted details recommended by national or international guidance, and was written at a level too advanced for average readers. CONCLUSION: Improvements should be made to the content, quality, and readability of online information so that it both reinforces and complements the discussions between parents and clinicians about testing options during pregnancy.

Factors that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries. METHODS: Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis. RESULTS: Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs. CONCLUSION: Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable.

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis: Expanded NIPT that includes conditions other than trisomies 13, 18, and 21 should be offered.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) based on analysis of cell free DNA circulating in the maternal plasma has been available clinically to screen for chromosomal abnormalities since 2011. There is significant evidence to suggest that NIPT has revolutionised prenatal screening for the common trisomies 13, 18, and 21. However, the evidence in favour of its extended use to screen for conditions other than these trisomies remains a topic of debate with no national or international organisation supporting clinical implementation for these indications. In the debate presented here - "Expanded NIPT that includes conditions other than trisomies 13, 18, and 21 should be offered" - we will see the pros and cons of screening for a wider range of chromosomal problems. The discussion presented swung the vote from 65% in favour and 35% against before the arguments were voiced to 41% in favour and 59% against. This significant swing in the vote indicates that the majority of our community feel more evidence is required before clinical implementation of extended NIPT.

Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Fetal structural anomalies, which are detected by ultrasonography, have a range of genetic causes, including chromosomal aneuploidy, copy number variations (CNVs; which are detectable by chromosomal microarrays), and pathogenic sequence variants in developmental genes. Testing for aneuploidy and CNVs is routine during the investigation of fetal structural anomalies, but there is little information on the clinical usefulness of genome-wide next-generation sequencing in the prenatal setting. We therefore aimed to evaluate the proportion of fetuses with structural abnormalities that had identifiable variants in genes associated with developmental disorders when assessed with whole-exome sequencing (WES). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, two groups in Birmingham and London recruited patients from 34 fetal medicine units in England and Scotland. We used whole-exome sequencing (WES) to evaluate the presence of genetic variants in developmental disorder genes (diagnostic genetic variants) in a cohort of fetuses with structural anomalies and samples from their parents, after exclusion of aneuploidy and large CNVs. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were undergoing invasive testing for identified nuchal translucency or structural anomalies in their fetus, as detected by ultrasound after 11 weeks of gestation. The partners of these women also had to consent to participate. Sequencing results were interpreted with a targeted virtual gene panel for developmental disorders that comprised 1628 genes. Genetic results related to fetal structural anomaly phenotypes were then validated and reported postnatally. The primary endpoint, which was assessed in all fetuses, was the detection of diagnostic genetic variants considered to have caused the fetal developmental anomaly. FINDINGS: The cohort was recruited between Oct 22, 2014, and June 29, 2017, and clinical data were collected until March 31, 2018. After exclusion of fetuses with aneuploidy and CNVs, 610 fetuses with structural anomalies and 1202 matched parental samples (analysed as 596 fetus-parental trios, including two sets of twins, and 14 fetus-parent dyads) were analysed by WES. After bioinformatic filtering and prioritisation according to allele frequency and effect on protein and inheritance pattern, 321 genetic variants (representing 255 potential diagnoses) were selected as potentially pathogenic genetic variants (diagnostic genetic variants), and these variants were reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical review panel. A diagnostic genetic variant was identified in 52 (8·5%; 95% CI 6·4-11·0) of 610 fetuses assessed and an additional 24 (3·9%) fetuses had a variant of uncertain significance that had potential clinical usefulness. Detection of diagnostic genetic variants enabled us to distinguish between syndromic and non-syndromic fetal anomalies (eg, congenital heart disease only vs a syndrome with congenital heart disease and learning disability). Diagnostic genetic variants were present in 22 (15·4%) of 143 fetuses with multisystem anomalies (ie, more than one fetal structural anomaly), nine (11·1%) of 81 fetuses with cardiac anomalies, and ten (15·4%) of 65 fetuses with skeletal anomalies; these phenotypes were most commonly associated with diagnostic variants. However, diagnostic genetic variants were least common in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency (≥4·0 mm) in the first trimester (in three [3·2%] of 93 fetuses). INTERPRETATION: WES facilitates genetic diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies, which enables more accurate predictions of fetal prognosis and risk of recurrence in future pregnancies. However, the overall detection of diagnostic genetic variants in a prospectively ascertained cohort with a broad range of fetal structural anomalies is lower than that suggested by previous smaller-scale studies of fewer phenotypes. WES improved the identification of genetic disorders in fetuses with structural abnormalities; however, before clinical implementation, careful consideration should be given to case selection to maximise clinical usefulness. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care and The Wellcome Trust.

Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Single-Gene Diseases: The Next Frontier.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) is present in the maternal blood from around 4 weeks gestation and makes up 5%-20% of the total circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma. Presence of cffDNA has allowed development of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single-gene disorders. This can be performed from 9 weeks gestation and offers a definitive diagnosis without the miscarriage risk associated with invasive procedures. One of the major challenges is distinguishing fetal mutations in the high background of maternal cfDNA, and research is currently focusing on the technological advances required to solve this problem. CONTENT: Here, we review the literature to describe the current status of NIPD for monogenic disorders and discuss how the evolving methodologies and technologies are expected to impact this field in both the commercial and public healthcare setting. SUMMARY: NIPD for single-gene diseases was first reported in 2000 and took 12 years to be approved for use in a public health service. Implementation has remained slow but is expected to increase as this testing becomes cheaper, faster, and more accurate. There are still many technical and analytical challenges ahead, and it is vital that discussions surrounding the ethical and social impact of NIPD take account of the considerations required to implement these services safely into the healthcare setting, while keeping up with the technological advances.

Cell-Free DNA in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplantation Using a New Detection Method of Separating Donor-Derived from Recipient Cell-Free DNA.

BACKGROUND: The use of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as a noninvasive biomarker to detect allograft damage is expanding rapidly. However, quantifying the low fraction of donor-derived cfDNA (ddcfDNA) is challenging and requires a highly sensitive technique. ddcfDNA detection through unique donor single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is a recent new approach, however there are limited data in pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS: We developed an assay using a combination of 61 SNPs to quantify the ddcfDNA accurately using a custom R script to model for both the patient and donor genotypes requiring only a single sample from the allograft recipient. Performance of the assay was validated using genomic DNA (gDNA), cfDNA and donor samples where available. RESULTS: The R "genotype-free" method gave results comparable to when using the known donor genotype. applicable to both related and unrelated pairs and can reliably measure ddcfDNA (limit of blank, below 0.12%; limit of detection, above 0.25%; limit of quantification 0.5% resulting in 84% accuracy). 159 pediatric SOT recipients (kidney, heart, and lung) were tested without the need for donor genotyping. Serial sampling was obtained from 82 patients. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a new assay to measure the fraction of ddcfDNA in the plasma of pediatric SOT recipients. Our method can be applicable in any donor-recipient pair without the need for donor genotyping and can provide results in 48 h at a low cost. Additional prospective studies are required to demonstrate its clinical validity in a large cohort of pediatric SOT recipients.

Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis for Cystic Fibrosis: Implementation, Uptake, Outcome, and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for monogenic disorders has a high uptake by families. Since 2013, our accredited public health service laboratory has offered NIPD for monogenic disorders, predominantly for de novo or paternally dominantly inherited mutations. Here we describe the extension of this service to include definitive NIPD for a recessive condition, cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: Definitive NIPD for CF was developed using next-generation sequencing. Validation was performed on 13 cases from 10 families before implementation. All cases referred for CF NIPD were reviewed to determine turnaround times, genotyping results, and pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: Of 38 referrals, 36 received a result with a mean turnaround of 5.75 days (range, 3-11 days). Nine cases were initially inconclusive, with 3 reported unaffected because the low-risk paternal allele was inherited and 4 cases in which the high-risk paternal allele was inherited, receiving conclusive results following repeat testing. One case was inconclusive owing to a paternal recombination around the mutation site, and one case was uninformative because of no heterozygosity. Before 2016, 3 invasive referrals for CF were received annually compared with 38 for NIPD in the 24 months since offering a definitive NIPD service. CONCLUSIONS: Timely and accurate NIPD for definitive prenatal diagnosis of CF is possible in a public health service laboratory. The method detects recombinations, and the service is well-received as evidenced by the significant increase in referrals. The bioinformatic approach is gene agnostic and will be used to expand the range of conditions tested for.