Prenatal exome sequencing, a powerful tool for improving the description of prenatal features associated with genetic disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Prenatal exome sequencing (pES) is now commonly used in clinical practice. It can be used to identifiy an additional diagnosis in around 30% of fetuses with structural defects and normal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). However, interpretation remains challenging due to the limited prenatal data for genetic disorders. METHOD: We conducted an ancillary study including fetuses with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified by trio-pES from the "AnDDI-Prenatome" study. The prenatal phenotype of each patient was categorized as typical, uncommon, or unreported based on the comparison of the prenatal findings with documented findings in the literature and public phenotype-genotype databases (ClinVar, HGMD, OMIM, and Decipher). RESULTS: Prenatal phenotypes were typical for 38/56 fetuses (67.9%). For the others, genotype-phenotype associations were challenging due to uncommon prenatal features (absence of recurrent hallmark, rare, or unreported). We report the first prenatal features associated with LINS1 and PGM1 variants. In addition, a double diagnosis was identified in three fetuses. CONCLUSION: Standardizing the description of prenatal features, implementing longitudinal prenatal follow-up, and large-scale collection of prenatal features are essential steps to improving pES data interpretation.

Prenatal diagnosis by trio exome sequencing in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: A powerful diagnostic tool.

Introduction: Prenatal ultrasound (US) anomalies are detected in around 5%-10% of pregnancies. In prenatal diagnosis, exome sequencing (ES) diagnostic yield ranges from 6% to 80% depending on the inclusion criteria. We describe the first French national multicenter pilot study aiming to implement ES in prenatal diagnosis following the detection of anomalies on US. Patients and methods: We prospectively performed prenatal trio-ES in 150 fetuses with at least two US anomalies or one US anomaly known to be frequently linked to a genetic disorder. Trio-ES was only performed if the results could influence pregnancy management. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) was performed before or in parallel. Results: A causal diagnosis was identified in 52/150 fetuses (34%) with a median time to diagnosis of 28 days, which rose to 56/150 fetuses (37%) after additional investigation. Sporadic occurrences were identified in 34/56 (60%) fetuses and unfavorable vital and/or neurodevelopmental prognosis was made in 13/56 (24%) fetuses. The overall diagnostic yield was 41% (37/89) with first-line trio-ES versus 31% (19/61) after normal CMA. Trio-ES and CMA were systematically concordant for identification of pathogenic CNV. Conclusion: Trio-ES provided a substantial prenatal diagnostic yield, similar to postnatal diagnosis with a median turnaround of approximately 1 month, supporting its routine implementation during the detection of prenatal US anomalies.

Coexistence of schwannomatosis and glioblastoma in two families.

Schwannomatosis is a rare affection predisposing to multiple peripheral neurologic tumors development. Approximatively, one third of patients with schwannomatosis are carriers of a germline mutation in LZTR1 (Leucin Zipper Transcription Regulator 1). Tumorigenesis in schwannomatosis responds to a somatic 5-hit/3-step mechanism resulting in a loss of function (LOF) of LZTR1 and the contiguous genes of locus 22q11.2q12.2. Effectively, LZTR1 is mapped on 22q11.2 and centromeric to SMARCB1 also implicated in the determinism of schwannomatosis and NF2, responsible for neurofibromatosis type 2. On a somatic point of view, LZTR1 mutations are known to drive with a significant frequency glioblastoma (GB) development. We report here two families in which segregate both multiple schwannomas and GB. In the first family, the proband received a diagnosis with of schwannomatosis after a surgery for a lumbar schwannoma at age 43, molecularly confirmed by identification of a germline heterozygous mutation in LZTR1. Her father, having unremarkable medical history deceased from an apparently isolated GB at age 59. In the second family, LZTR1-related schwannomatosis was diagnosed in the index case at age 70 after multiple schwannomas surgeries. Her elder sister had no neurological medical history before occurrence of a lethal GB at age 78. Molecular analysis of GB sample from both affected relatives showed the presence of the familial mutation. These observations hypothesize a potential link between schwannomatosis and the GB development.