Literature DB >> 34057224

Preference for secondary findings in prenatal and pediatric exome sequencing.

Kate Swanson1,2, Teresa N Sparks1,3,4, Billie R Lianoglou3, Flavia Chen4, Sarah Downum1, Sachi Patel1,4, Shannon Rego4, Tiffany Yip4, Jessica Van Ziffle4, Barbara A Koenig5, Anne M Slavotinek2,4, Mary E Norton1,2,3,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the frequency of accepting secondary findings in families undergoing exome sequencing in prenatal and pediatric settings.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of prospectively enrolled patients undergoing trio exome sequencing for congenital anomalies or developmental disorders in prenatal and pediatric settings, in which families were offered receiving secondary findings (initially assessed in the proband and, if identified, then in the parents). The primary outcome was frequency of accepting secondary findings. Secondary outcomes included frequency of acceptance in prenatal versus pediatric settings, and sociodemographic differences between those who accepted versus declined secondary findings.
RESULTS: There were 682 families included in the cohort (289 prenatal and 393 pediatric). Overall, 84% (576/682) of families accepted secondary findings: 86.2% (249/289) of families undergoing prenatal versus 83.2% (327/393) pediatric (p = 0.30) testing. Secondary findings were identified in 2.6% (15/576) of cases, with no difference between prenatal and pediatric settings. There were no differences in sociodemographics between families that accepted versus declined secondary findings.
CONCLUSION: The majority of families undergoing exome sequencing accepted secondary findings; this did not differ in prenatal versus pediatric settings. This highlights the need for guidance surrounding the offer of secondary findings in the prenatal setting.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34057224      PMCID: PMC8630094          DOI: 10.1002/pd.5973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.242


  22 in total

1.  Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: The 59 genes ACMG recommends reporting as secondary findings when sequencing postnatally should be reported when detected on fetal (and parental) sequencing.

Authors:  David J Amor; Lyn S Chitty; Ignatia B Van den Veyver
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 2.  Is non-directive communication in genetic counseling possible?

Authors:  M Pennacchini; C Pensieri
Journal:  Clin Ter       Date:  2011

3.  Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results.

Authors:  Robyn Hylind; Maureen Smith; Laura Rasmussen-Torvik; Sharon Aufox
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 4.  Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing.

Authors:  Sunayna Best; Karen Wou; Neeta Vora; Ignatia B Van der Veyver; Ronald Wapner; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Authors:  Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study.

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

7.  An approach to integrating exome sequencing for fetal structural anomalies into clinical practice.

Authors:  Neeta L Vora; Kelly Gilmore; Alicia Brandt; Chelsea Gustafson; Natasha Strande; Lori Ramkissoon; Emily Hardisty; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Phillips Owen; Karen E Weck; Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Powell; Bradford C Powell
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 8.  Clinical Application of Genome and Exome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool for Pediatric Patients: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Hadley Stevens Smith; J Michael Swint; Seema R Lalani; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Marcia C de Oliveira Otto; Stephan Castellanos; Amy Taylor; Brendan H Lee; Heidi V Russell
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in.

Authors:  Maren T Scheuner; Jane Peredo; Judith Benkendorf; Bruce Bowdish; Gerald Feldman; Lynn Fleisher; John J Mulvihill; Michael Watson; Gail E Herman; James Evans
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  A framework for reporting secondary and incidental findings in prenatal sequencing: When and for whom?

Authors:  Danya Vears; David J Amor
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 3.242

Review 2.  Factors that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey.

Authors:  James Buchanan; Melissa Hill; Caroline M Vass; Jennifer Hammond; Sam Riedijk; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Eleanor Harding; Stina Lou; Ida Vogel; Lisa Hui; Charlotta Ingvoldstad-Malmgren; Maria Johansson Soller; Kelly E Ormond; Mahesh Choolani; Qian Zheng; Lyn S Chitty; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 3.242

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.