Genetic technology has advanced dramatically in the past few decades, and its applications and use in caring for and counseling pregnant women has been transformational in the realm of prenatal diagnosis. Two of the newer genetic technologies in the prenatal setting are chromosomal microarray and whole-exome sequencing. Chromosomal microarray analysis is a method of measuring gains and losses of DNA throughout the human genome. It can identify chromosomal aneuploidy and other large changes in the structure of chromosomes as well as submicroscopic abnormalities that are too small to be detected by traditional modalities. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis is recommended for a patient with a fetus with one or more major structural abnormalities identified on ultrasonographic examination and who is undergoing invasive prenatal diagnosis. Whole-genome sequencing analyzes the entire genome, including noncoding regions (introns) and coding regions (exons). However, because the introns are typically of little clinical relevance, there has been a focus instead on whole-exome sequencing, which examines the coding regions (exons) of the genome. The exons generally have greater clinical relevance and applicability to patient care. However, the routine use of whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis is not recommended outside of the context of clinical trials.

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is performed either by array comparative genomic hybridization or by using a single nucleotide polymorphism array. In the prenatal setting, CMA is on par with traditional karyotyping for detection of major chromosomal imbalances such as aneuploidy and unbalanced rearrangements. CMA offers additional diagnostic benefits by revealing sub-microscopic imbalances or copy number variations that are too small to be seen on a standard G-banded chromosome preparation. These submicroscopic imbalances are also referred to as microdeletions and microduplications, particularly when they include specific genomic regions that are associated with clinical sequelae. Not all microdeletions/duplications are associated with adverse clinical phenotypes and in many cases, their presence is benign. In other cases, they are associated with a spectrum of clinical phenotypes that may range from benign to severe, while in some situations, the clinical significance may simply be unknown. These scenarios present a challenge for prenatal diagnosis, and genetic counseling prior to prenatal CMA greatly facilitates delivery of complex results. In prenatal diagnostic samples with a normal karyotype, chromosomal microarray will diagnose a clinically significant subchromosomal deletion or duplication in approximately 1% of structurally normal pregnancies and 6% with a structural anomaly. Pre-test counseling is also necessary to distinguish the primary differences between the benefits, limitations and diagnostic scope of CMA versus the powerful but limited screening nature of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free fetal DNA.Copyright © 2017 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.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.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.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.Institute for Genomic Medicine (Columbia University Irving Medical Center).Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Exome sequencing (ES) is becoming more widely available in prenatal diagnosis. However, data on its clinical utility and integration into clinical management remain limited in practice. Herein, we report our experience implementing prenatal ES (pES) in a large cohort of fetuses with anomalies detected by ultrasonography using a hospital-based in-house multidisciplinary team (MDT) facilitated by a three-step genotype-driven followed by phenotype-driven analysis framework.

First, to determine the incremental yield of whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) over quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF‐PCR)/chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) with and without exome sequencing (ES) in fetuses, neonates and infants with a congenital anomaly that was or could have been detected on prenatal ultrasound. Second, to evaluate the turnaround time (TAT) and quantity of DNA required for testing using these pathways.

Structural anomalies of the central nervous system (CNS) are one of the most common fetal anomalies found during prenatal imaging. However, the genomic architecture of prenatal imaging phenotypes has not yet been systematically studied in a large cohort. Patients diagnosed with fetal CNS anomalies were identified from medical records and images. Fetal samples were subjected to low-pass and deep whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for aneuploid, copy number variation (CNV), single-nucleotide variant (SNV, including insertions/deletions (indels)), and small CNV identification. The clinical significance of variants was interpreted based on a candidate gene list constructed from ultrasound phenotypes. In total, 162 fetuses with 11 common CNS anomalies were enrolled in this study. Primary diagnosis was achieved in 62 cases, with an overall diagnostic rate of 38.3%. Causative variants included 18 aneuploids, 17 CNVs, three small CNVs, and 24 SNVs. Among the 24 SNVs, 15 were novel mutations not reported previously. Furthermore, 29 key genes of diagnostic variants and critical genes of pathogenic CNVs were identified, including five recurrent genes: i.e., TUBA1A, KAT6B, CC2D2A, PDHA1, and NF1. Diagnostic variants were present in 34 (70.8%) out of 48 fetuses with both CNS and non-CNS malformations, and in 28 (24.6%) out of 114 fetuses with CNS anomalies only. Hypoplasia of the cerebellum (including the cerebellar vermis) and holoprosencephaly had the highest primary diagnosis yields (>70%), while only four (11.8%) out of 34 neural tube defects achieved genetic diagnosis. Compared with the control group, rare singleton loss-of-function variants (SLoFVs) were significantly accumulated in the patient cohort.© 2022. The Author(s).

Prenatal diagnostic testing of amniotic fluid, chorionic villi, or more rarely, fetal cord blood is recommended following a positive or unreportable noninvasive cell-free fetal DNA test, abnormal maternal biochemical serum screen, abnormal ultrasound, or increased genetic risk for a cytogenomic abnormality based on family history. Although chromosomal microarray is recommended as the first-tier prenatal diagnostic test, in practice, multiple assays are often assessed in concert to achieve a final diagnostic result. The use of multiple methodologies is costly, time consuming, and labor intensive. Optical genome mapping (OGM) is an emerging technique with application for prenatal diagnosis because of its ability to detect and resolve, in a single assay, all classes of pathogenic cytogenomic aberrations. In an effort to characterize the potential of OGM as a novel alternative to traditional standard of care (SOC) testing of prenatal samples, OGM was performed on a total of 200 samples representing 123 unique cases, which were previously tested with SOC methods (92/123 = 74.7% cases tested with at least two SOCs). OGM demonstrated an overall accuracy of 99.6% when compared with SOC methods, a positive predictive value of 100%, and 100% reproducibility between sites, operators, and instruments. The standardized workflow, cost-effectiveness, and high-resolution cytogenomic analysis demonstrate the potential of OGM to serve as a first-tier test for prenatal diagnosis.Copyright © 2024 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

To determine the diagnostic yield of exome or genome sequencing (ES/GS) over chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency (NT) and no concomitant anomalies.

Aortic arch abnormalities (AAA) are abnormal embryologic developments of the aorta and its branches. Their outcomes often depend on their association with other congenital diseases and genetic testing results.This study aimed to evaluate the yield of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with different patterns of AAA and normal karyotype.Data from 158 pregnancies referred for prenatal CMA testing due to fetal AAA were obtained between April 2016 and April 2019. Fetuses with isolated AAA, AAA accompanied by soft ultrasound markers, and AAA with other ultrasound malformations were classified into groups A, B, and C, respectively. Cases with detectable karyotype aberrations were excluded from the study.Twenty cases (12.7%) of submicroscopic anomalies were detected in 158 cases with normal karyotype, comprising 16 cases (10.1%) of clinically significant variants, two cases (1.3%) of variants of unknown significance, and two variants (1.3%) that were likely benign. Microdeletion of 22q11.2 accounted for 25% (4/16) of the clinically significant variants. The overall incremental yields by CMA in group A, group B, and group C were 1.8%, 2.3%, and 24.1%, respectively. Except for double aortic arch, the incremental yield of clinical significant findings for each type of AAA in group C was much higher than that in group A and group B. In group A, a clinically significant variant was only detected in one fetus with right aortic arch (RAA) (1.8%, 1/57).In addition to 22q11.2 microdeletion, many other clinically significant submicroscopic variants are present in fetuses with AAA, especially in fetuses with other ultrasound malformations. Although CMA is always recommended in the presence of any malformation in many countries, our results suggest insufficient evidence to recommend CMA in fetuses with isolated AAA, except for isolated RAA.

Polyhydramnios, the excessive accumulation of amniotic fluid, is associated with an elevated risk of abnormal karyotype, particularly aneuploidy. Studies focusing on chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in pregnancies with polyhydramnios are limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implications of pregnancy with polyhydramnios by CMA testing and routine karyotyping.Data from 131 singleton and 17 twin pregnancies that underwent prenatal CMA testing due to polyhydramnios between May 2017 and May 2021 were reviewed. Enrolled cases were grouped into isolated polyhydramnios (N = 39) and non-isolated polyhydramnios (N = 111). Non-isolated group was further categorized as subgroup of soft markers (n = 59) and non-soft markers (n = 52).CMA revealed an additional 10 (6.7%) chromosomal aberrations with clinical significance in 9 fetuses from singleton pregnancies and 1 from a twin pregnancy. Six microdeletion/microduplication syndromes were observed, of which 4 were located on chromosome 17. The incremental yields of clinically significant CMA findings in non-isolated polyhydramnios was 8.1%, and the values in fetuses along with soft markers and non-soft markers were 5.1% and 11.5% (p > 0.05), respectively. Only one incidental finding related to neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies was detected from 39 fetuses with isolated polyhydramnios.Non-isolated polyhydramnios is associated with several microdeletion/microduplication syndromes, regardless of singleton or twin pregnancies. Our results suggest insufficient evidence to recommend CMA in pregnancies with isolated polyhydramnios.© 2022. The Author(s).

Chromosomal microarray analysis is recommended as the first‐tier test for the evaluation of fetuses with structural anomalies. This study aims to investigate the incremental diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray over conventional karyotyping analysis in fetuses with anomalies restricted to one anatomic system and those with nonspecific anomalies detected by sonography.

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants.(1) In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next-generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever-increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprising representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and the College of American Pathologists to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP, and College of American Pathologists stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories, including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes, and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology-"pathogenic," "likely pathogenic," "uncertain significance," "likely benign," and "benign"-to describe variants identified in genes that cause Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classifying variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g., population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved laboratory, with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or the equivalent.

To evaluate the impact of implementing commercial whole exome sequencing (WES) and targeted gene panel testing in pregnancies with fetal anomalies.

To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES).

Prenatal DNA tests, such as chromosomal microarray analysis or exome sequencing, increase the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis when fetal structural anomalies are identified. However, some parents will receive uncertain results such as variants of uncertain significance and secondary findings. We aimed to develop a set of attributes and associated levels for a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) that will examine parents’ preferences for tests that may reveal uncertain test results. A two phase mixed-methods approach was used to develop attributes for the DCE. In Phase 1, a “long list” of candidate attributes were identified via two approaches: 1) a systematic review of the literature around parental experiences of uncertainty following prenatal testing; 2) 16 semi-structured interviews with parents who had experienced uncertainty during pregnancy and 25 health professionals who return uncertain prenatal results. In Phase 2, a quantitative scoring exercise with parents prioritised the candidate attributes. Clinically appropriate levels for each attribute were then developed. A final set of five attributes and levels were identified: likelihood of getting a result, reporting of variants of uncertain significance, reporting of secondary findings, time taken to receive results, and who tells you about your result. These attributes will be used in an international DCE study to investigate preferences and differences across countries. This research will inform best practice for professionals supporting parents to manage uncertainty in the prenatal setting.

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.