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. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Medical Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. Fetal Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. Program in Bioethics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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