F Mone1,2, R Y Eberhardt3, M E Hurles3, D J Mcmullan4, E R Maher5,6,7, J Lord3, L S Chitty8,9, E Dempsey10, T Homfray11, J L Giordano12,13, R J Wapner12,13, L Sun14, T N Sparks15, M E Norton15, M D Kilby1,2. 1. Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. 2. Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 3. Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK. 4. West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 5. Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 6. NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. 7. Department of Clinical Genetics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. 8. North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 9. UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK. 10. Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St George's University of London, London, UK. 11. SW Thames Regional Genetics Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 12. Institute for Genomic Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 13. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Vagelos Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 14. Fetal Medicine Unit and Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital of Tongji University, Shanghai, China. 15. Center for Maternal-Fetal Precision Medicine, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental yield of exome sequencing (ES) over chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) or karyotyping in prenatally diagnosed non-immune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). METHODS: A prospective cohort study (comprising an extended group of the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study) was performed which included 28 cases of prenatally diagnosed NIHF undergoing trio ES following negative CMA or karyotyping. These cases were combined with data from a systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched electronically (January 2000 to October 2020) for studies reporting on the incremental yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping in fetuses with prenatally detected NIHF. Inclusion criteria for the systematic review were: (i) at least two cases of NIHF undergoing sequencing; (ii) testing initiated based on prenatal ultrasound-based phenotype; and (iii) negative CMA or karyotyping result. The incremental diagnostic yield of ES was assessed in: (i) all cases of NIHF; (ii) isolated NIHF; (iii) NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly; and (iv) NIHF according to severity (i.e. two vs three or more cavities affected). RESULTS: In the extended PAGE study cohort, the additional diagnostic yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping was 25.0% (7/28) in all NIHF cases, 21.4% (3/14) in those with isolated NIHF and 28.6% (4/14) in those with non-isolated NIHF. In the meta-analysis, the pooled incremental yield based on 21 studies (306 cases) was 29% (95% CI, 24-34%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) in all NIHF, 21% (95% CI, 13-30%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) in isolated NIHF and 39% (95% CI, 30-49%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 1%) in NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly. In the latter group, congenital limb contractures were the most prevalent additional structural anomaly associated with a causative pathogenic variant, occurring in 17.3% (19/110) of cases. The incremental yield did not differ significantly according to hydrops severity. The most common genetic disorders identified were RASopathies, occurring in 30.3% (27/89) of cases with a causative pathogenic variant, most frequently due to a PTPN11 variant (44.4%; 12/27). The predominant inheritance pattern in causative pathogenic variants was autosomal dominant in monoallelic disease genes (57.3%; 51/89), with most being de novo (86.3%; 44/51). CONCLUSIONS: Use of prenatal next-generation sequencing in both isolated and non-isolated NIHF should be considered in the development of clinical pathways. Given the wide range of potential syndromic diagnoses and heterogeneity in the prenatal phenotype of NIHF, exome or whole-genome sequencing may prove to be a more appropriate testing approach than a targeted gene panel testing strategy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental yield of exome sequencing (ES) over chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) or karyotyping in prenatally diagnosed non-immune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). METHODS: A prospective cohort study (comprising an extended group of the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study) was performed which included 28 cases of prenatally diagnosed NIHF undergoing trio ES following negative CMA or karyotyping. These cases were combined with data from a systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched electronically (January 2000 to October 2020) for studies reporting on the incremental yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping in fetuses with prenatally detected NIHF. Inclusion criteria for the systematic review were: (i) at least two cases of NIHF undergoing sequencing; (ii) testing initiated based on prenatal ultrasound-based phenotype; and (iii) negative CMA or karyotyping result. The incremental diagnostic yield of ES was assessed in: (i) all cases of NIHF; (ii) isolated NIHF; (iii) NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly; and (iv) NIHF according to severity (i.e. two vs three or more cavities affected). RESULTS: In the extended PAGE study cohort, the additional diagnostic yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping was 25.0% (7/28) in all NIHF cases, 21.4% (3/14) in those with isolated NIHF and 28.6% (4/14) in those with non-isolated NIHF. In the meta-analysis, the pooled incremental yield based on 21 studies (306 cases) was 29% (95% CI, 24-34%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) in all NIHF, 21% (95% CI, 13-30%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) in isolated NIHF and 39% (95% CI, 30-49%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 1%) in NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly. In the latter group, congenital limb contractures were the most prevalent additional structural anomaly associated with a causative pathogenic variant, occurring in 17.3% (19/110) of cases. The incremental yield did not differ significantly according to hydrops severity. The most common genetic disorders identified were RASopathies, occurring in 30.3% (27/89) of cases with a causative pathogenic variant, most frequently due to a PTPN11 variant (44.4%; 12/27). The predominant inheritance pattern in causative pathogenic variants was autosomal dominant in monoallelic disease genes (57.3%; 51/89), with most being de novo (86.3%; 44/51). CONCLUSIONS: Use of prenatal next-generation sequencing in both isolated and non-isolated NIHF should be considered in the development of clinical pathways. Given the wide range of potential syndromic diagnoses and heterogeneity in the prenatal phenotype of NIHF, exome or whole-genome sequencing may prove to be a more appropriate testing approach than a targeted gene panel testing strategy.
Authors: F G Sileo; A Kulkarni; I Branescu; T Homfray; E Dempsey; S Mansour; B Thilaganathan; A Bhide; A Khalil Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Kyra E Stuurman; Marieke Joosten; Ineke van der Burgt; Mariet Elting; Helger G Yntema; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Tuula Rinne Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Dominik S Westphal; Gloria S Leszinski; Esther Rieger-Fackeldey; Elisabeth Graf; Gregor Weirich; Thomas Meitinger; Eva Ostermayer; Renate Oberhoffer; Matias Wagner Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: F A R Jansen; Y J Blumenfeld; A Fisher; J M Cobben; A O Odibo; A Borrell; M C Haak Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Teresa N Sparks; Kao Thao; Billie R Lianoglou; Nina M Boe; Kari G Bruce; Ilina Datkhaeva; Nancy T Field; Victoria M Fratto; Jennifer Jolley; Louise C Laurent; Anne H Mardy; Aisling M Murphy; Emily Ngan; Naseem Rangwala; Catherine A M Rottkamp; Lisa Wilson; Erica Wu; Cherry C Uy; Priscila Valdez Lopez; Mary E Norton Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: F Mone; R Y Eberhardt; R K Morris; M E Hurles; D J McMullan; E R Maher; J Lord; L S Chitty; J L Giordano; R J Wapner; M D Kilby Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Jenny Lord; Dominic J McMullan; Ruth Y Eberhardt; Gabriele Rinck; Susan J Hamilton; Elizabeth Quinlan-Jones; Elena Prigmore; Rebecca Keelagher; Sunayna K Best; Georgina K Carey; Rhiannon Mellis; Sarah Robart; Ian R Berry; Kate E Chandler; Deirdre Cilliers; Lara Cresswell; Sandra L Edwards; Carol Gardiner; Alex Henderson; Simon T Holden; Tessa Homfray; Tracy Lester; Rebecca A Lewis; Ruth Newbury-Ecob; Katrina Prescott; Oliver W Quarrell; Simon C Ramsden; Eileen Roberts; Dagmar Tapon; Madeleine J Tooley; Pradeep C Vasudevan; Astrid P Weber; Diana G Wellesley; Paul Westwood; Helen White; Michael Parker; Denise Williams; Lucy Jenkins; Richard H Scott; Mark D Kilby; Lyn S Chitty; Matthew E Hurles; Eamonn R Maher Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Nicole Corsten-Janssen; Katelijne Bouman; Janouk C D Diphoorn; Arjen J Scheper; Rianne Kinds; Julia El Mecky; Hanna Breet; Joke B G M Verheij; Ron Suijkerbuijk; Leonie K Duin; Gwendolyn T R Manten; Irene M van Langen; Rolf H Sijmons; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Helga Westers; Cleo C van Diemen Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Mary E Norton; Jessica Van Ziffle; Billie R Lianoglou; Ugur Hodoglugil; W Patrick Devine; Teresa N Sparks Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 8.661