A H Mardy1, A P Wiita2, B V Wayman3, K Drexler4, T N Sparks1, M E Norton1. 1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Cytogenetics Laboratory, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Prenatal Diagnostic Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To categorise the variants of uncertain significance found with prenatal chromosomal microarray and determine the proportion of such variants that are associated with a well-known phenotype in order to establish how often they remain truly of uncertain significance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The University of California, San Francisco. POPULATION: All patients with a variant of uncertain significance on prenatal microarray between 2014 and 2018. METHODS: Each variant was classified as a copy number variant that (a) contains Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)-annotated disease-causing genes ('OMIM morbid genes'); (b) confers autosomal recessive carrier status; (c) is associated with incomplete penetrance; (d) is >1 Mb in size without OMIM morbid genes; (e) demonstrates mosaicism; or (f) contains significant regions of homozygosity. For each variant of uncertain significance, we examined the existing literature to determine whether the predicted phenotype(s) was known. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence and classification of variants and how much information is available regarding the likelihood of an affected phenotype. RESULTS: Of 970 prenatal microarrays, 55 (5.8%) had at least one variant of uncertain significance. The most common were copy number variants containing OMIM morbid genes (36.8%). In all, 48 (84.2%) were associated with a known phenotype; 55 (96.5%) had data available regarding the likelihood of an affected phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of variants of uncertain significance with prenatal microarray was 5.8%. In the large majority of cases, data were available regarding the predicted phenotype. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Variants of uncertain significance occur in 5.8% of prenatal microarrays. In the overwhelming majority of cases, outcome information is available.
OBJECTIVE: To categorise the variants of uncertain significance found with prenatal chromosomal microarray and determine the proportion of such variants that are associated with a well-known phenotype in order to establish how often they remain truly of uncertain significance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The University of California, San Francisco. POPULATION: All patients with a variant of uncertain significance on prenatal microarray between 2014 and 2018. METHODS: Each variant was classified as a copy number variant that (a) contains Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)-annotated disease-causing genes ('OMIM morbid genes'); (b) confers autosomal recessive carrier status; (c) is associated with incomplete penetrance; (d) is >1 Mb in size without OMIM morbid genes; (e) demonstrates mosaicism; or (f) contains significant regions of homozygosity. For each variant of uncertain significance, we examined the existing literature to determine whether the predicted phenotype(s) was known. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence and classification of variants and how much information is available regarding the likelihood of an affected phenotype. RESULTS: Of 970 prenatal microarrays, 55 (5.8%) had at least one variant of uncertain significance. The most common were copy number variants containing OMIM morbid genes (36.8%). In all, 48 (84.2%) were associated with a known phenotype; 55 (96.5%) had data available regarding the likelihood of an affected phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of variants of uncertain significance with prenatal microarray was 5.8%. In the large majority of cases, data were available regarding the predicted phenotype. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Variants of uncertain significance occur in 5.8% of prenatal microarrays. In the overwhelming majority of cases, outcome information is available.
Authors: Hutton M Kearney; Erik C Thorland; Kerry K Brown; Fabiola Quintero-Rivera; Sarah T South Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ignatia B Van den Veyver; Ankita Patel; Chad A Shaw; Amber N Pursley; Sung-Hae L Kang; Marcia J Simovich; Patricia A Ward; Sandra Darilek; Anthony Johnson; Sarah E Neill; Weimin Bi; Lisa D White; Christine M Eng; James R Lupski; Sau Wai Cheung; Arthur L Beaudet Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Paul Daniel Brady; Barbara Delle Chiaie; Gabrielle Christenhusz; Kris Dierickx; Kris Van Den Bogaert; Bjorn Menten; Sandra Janssens; Paul Defoort; Ellen Roets; Elke Sleurs; Kathelijn Keymolen; Luc De Catte; Jan Deprest; Thomy de Ravel; Hilde Van Esch; Jean Pierre Fryns; Koenraad Devriendt; Joris Robert Vermeesch Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Aparna Prasad; Matthew A Sdano; Rena J Vanzo; Patricia A Mowery-Rushton; Moises A Serrano; Charles H Hensel; E Robert Wassman Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 2.023
Authors: Barbara A Bernhardt; Danielle Soucier; Karen Hanson; Melissa S Savage; Laird Jackson; Ronald J Wapner Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 8.822