Literature DB >> 27584908

Accuracy and clinical value of maternal incidental findings during noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies.

Nathalie Brison1, Kris Van Den Bogaert1, Luc Dehaspe1, Jessica M E van den Oever1, Katrien Janssens2, Bettina Blaumeiser2, Hilde Peeters1, Hilde Van Esch1, Griet Van Buggenhout1, Annick Vogels1, Thomy de Ravel1, Eric Legius1, Koen Devriendt1, Joris R Vermeesch1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Genome-wide sequencing of cell-free (cf)DNA of pregnant women aims to detect fetal chromosomal imbalances. Because the largest fraction of cfDNA consists of maternal rather than fetal DNA fragments, maternally derived copy-number variants (CNVs) are also measured. Despite their potential clinical relevance, current analyses do not interpret maternal CNVs. Here, we explore the accuracy and clinical value of maternal CNV analysis.
METHODS: Noninvasive prenatal testing was performed by whole-genome shotgun sequencing on plasma samples. Following mapping of the sequencing reads, the landscape of maternal CNVs was charted for 9,882 women using SeqCBS analysis. Recurrent CNVs were validated retrospectively by comparing their incidence with published reports. Nonrecurrent CNVs were prospectively confirmed by array comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis on maternal lymphocytes.
RESULTS: Consistent with population estimates, 10% nonrecurrent and 0.4% susceptibility CNVs for low-penetrant genomic disorders were identified. Five clinically actionable variants were reported to the pregnant women, including haploinsufficiency of RUNX1, a mosaicism for segmental chromosome 13 deletion, an unbalanced translocation, and two interstitial chromosome X deletions.
CONCLUSION: Shotgun sequencing of cfDNA not only enables the detection of fetal aneuploidies but also reveals the presence of maternal CNVs. Some of those variants are clinically actionable or could potentially be harmful for the fetus. Interrogating the maternal CNV landscape can improve overall pregnancy management, and we propose reporting those variants if clinically relevant. The identification and reporting of such CNVs pose novel counseling dilemmas that warrant further discussions and development of societal guidelines.Genet Med 19 3, 306-313.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27584908     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  14 in total

1.  Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians.

Authors:  Patricia K Agatisa; Mary Beth Mercer; Marissa Coleridge; Ruth M Farrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

Authors:  Joris Robert Vermeesch; Thierry Voet; Koenraad Devriendt
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 3.  Screening for fetal chromosomal and subchromosomal disorders.

Authors:  Sarah Harris; Dallas Reed; Neeta L Vora
Journal:  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; J Kelly Davis; Christine Kirby; Ian J Richardson; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Identification of Incidental Germline Mutations in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors Who Underwent Cell-Free Circulating Tumor DNA Sequencing.

Authors:  Thomas P Slavin; Kimberly C Banks; Darya Chudova; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Justin I Odegaard; Rebecca J Nagy; Kar Wing Kevin Tsang; Susan L Neuhausen; Stacy W Gray; Massimo Cristofanilli; Angel A Rodriguez; Aditya Bardia; Brian Leyland-Jones; Mike F Janicek; Michael Lilly; Guru Sonpavde; Christine E Lee; Richard B Lanman; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Razelle Kurzrock; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Origin and clinical relevance of chromosomal aberrations other than the common trisomies detected by genome-wide NIPS: results of the TRIDENT study.

Authors:  Diane Van Opstal; Merel C van Maarle; Klaske Lichtenbelt; Marjan M Weiss; Heleen Schuring-Blom; Shama L Bhola; Mariette J V Hoffer; Karin Huijsdens-van Amsterdam; Merryn V Macville; Angelique J A Kooper; Brigitte H W Faas; Lutgarde Govaerts; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; Nicolette den Hollander; Ilse Feenstra; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Dick Oepkes; Stijn Ghesquiere; Rutger W W Brouwer; Lean Beulen; Sander Bollen; Martin G Elferink; Roy Straver; Lidewij Henneman; Godelieve C Page-Christiaens; Erik A Sistermans
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Pregnant women with confirmed neoplasms should not have noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Liesbeth Lenaerts; Kristel Van Calsteren; Huiwen Che; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Frédéric Amant
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Eliciting women's preference for prenatal testing in China: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Liangzhi Wu; Yanxin Wu; Shiqian Zou; Cong Sun; Junyu Chen; Xueyan Li; Zihang Lin; Lizhi Guan; Qing Zeng; Sihan Zhao; Jingtong Liang; Rui Chen; Zhiwen Hu; Kingyan Au; Daipeng Xie; Xiaomin Xiao; Wai-Kit Ming
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 9.  Management of pregnancy in women with cancer.

Authors:  Vera Wolters; Joosje Heimovaara; Charlotte Maggen; Elyce Cardonick; Ingrid Boere; Liesbeth Lenaerts; Frédéric Amant
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.437

10.  Identification of Structural Variation from NGS-Based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing.

Authors:  Ondrej Pös; Jaroslav Budis; Zuzana Kubiritova; Marcel Kucharik; Frantisek Duris; Jan Radvanszky; Tomas Szemes
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-09-07       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.