Search

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of routine exome sequencing (ES) in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the ES results of 629 fetuses with isolated or multiple anomalies referred in 2019–2022. Variants in a gene panel consisting of approximately 3400 genes associated with multiple congenital anomalies and/or intellectual disability were analyzed. We used trio analysis and filtering for de novo variants, compound heterozygous variants, homozygous variants, X-linked variants, variants in imprinted genes, and known pathogenic variants. Results: Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (class five and four, respectively) were identified in 14.0% (88/629, 95% CI 11.5%–16.9%) of cases. In the current cohort, the probability of detecting a monogenetic disorder was ∼1:7 (88/629, 95% CI 1:8.7–1:5.9), ranging from 1:9 (49/424) in cases with one major anomaly to 1:5 (32/147) in cases with multiple system anomalies. Conclusions: Our results indicate that a notable number of fetuses (1:7) with ultrasound anomalies and a normal chromosomal microarray have a (likely) pathogenic variant that can be detected through prenatal ES. These results warrant implementation of exome sequencing in selected cases, including those with an isolated anomaly on prenatal ultrasound.

Objectives: Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors. Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.’s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty. Results: Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors’ uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness. Conclusion: Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics. Practice implications: Exploring counselees’ non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.

Objectives: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows the detection of placental chromosome aberrations. To verify whether the fetus also has the chromosome aberration, diagnostic follow-up testing is required. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the added value of analyzing amniotic fluid (AF) cell cultures in addition to uncultured AF cells for the detection of fetal mosaicism. Method: NIPT was performed as part of the Dutch TRIDENT study. Cytogenetic studies in uncultured AF were performed using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-array. Cultured AF cell colonies (in situ method) were investigated with fluorescent in situ hybridization and/or karyotyping. Clinical outcome data were collected in cases with discordant results. Results: Between April 2014 and December 2021, 368 amniocenteses were performed after a chromosomal aberration was detected with NIPT. Excluding 134 cases of common aneuploidies (confirmed by quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction), 29 cases with investigation of uncultured cells only and 1 case without informed consent, 204 cases were eligible for this study. In 196 (96%) cases, the results in uncultured and cultured cells were concordant normal, abnormal or mosaic. Five cases (2%) showed mosaicism in cultured AF cells, whereas uncultured AF cells were normal. Two (1%) of these, one mosaic trisomy 13 and one mosaic trisomy 16, were considered true fetal mosaics. Conclusion: The added value of investigating AF cell cultures in addition to uncultured cells is limited to two of 204 (1%) cases in which true fetal mosaicsm would otherwise be missed. The clinical relevance of one (trisomy 13) remained unknown and the other case also showed ultrasound anomalies, which determined pregnancy management. This seems to justify limiting prenatal cytogenetic confirmatory testing to SNP arrays on uncultured AF cells, considerably shortening the reporting time.

Karin EM Diderich, Jasmijn E Klapwijk, Vyne van der Schoot, Hennie T Brüggenwirth, Marieke Joosten, Malgorzata I Srebniak Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Karin EM Diderich, Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Wytemaweg 50, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Tel +31 10 70 43214, Email k.diderich@erasmusmc.nlAbstract: The yield of genetic prenatal diagnosis has been notably improved by introducing whole genome chromosomal microarray (CMA) and prenatal exome sequencing (pES). However, together with increased numbers of diagnoses made, the need to manage challenging findings such as variants of unknown significance (VUS) and incidental findings (IF) also increased. We have summarized the current guidelines and recommendations and we have shown current solutions used in our tertiary center in the Netherlands. We discuss four of the most common clinical situations: fetus with normal pES results, fetus with a pathogenic finding explaining the fetal phenotype, fetus with a variant of uncertain clinical significance fitting the phenotype and fetus with a variant leading to an incidental diagnosis. Additionally, we reflect on solutions in order to facilitate genetic counseling in an NGS-era.Keywords: exome sequencing, genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis, incidental findings, variants of unknown significance, VUS, IF

The yield of genetic prenatal diagnosis has been notably improved by introducing whole genome chromosomal microarray (CMA) and prenatal exome sequencing (pES). However, together with increased numbers of diagnoses made, the need to manage challenging findings such as variants of unknown significance (VUS) and incidental findings (IF) also increased. We have summarized the current guidelines and recommendations and we have shown current solutions used in our tertiary center in the Netherlands. We discuss four of the most common clinical situations: fetus with normal pES results, fetus with a pathogenic finding explaining the fetal phenotype, fetus with a variant of uncertain clinical significance fitting the phenotype and fetus with a variant leading to an incidental diagnosis. Additionally, we reflect on solutions in order to facilitate genetic counseling in an NGS-era.

Unsolicited findings in genetic testing are disease causing variants which are unintentionally found. This study showed that a predisposition for a treatable condition can be demonstrated in 2.7% of healthy individuals, while a predisposition was found by chance in <1% of people who received genetic testing. People who had been confronted with an unsolicited finding said not to perceive high impact of the finding. Genetic counselors struggled with which information to disclose about unsolicited findings pre-test. Uncertainty related to unsolicited findings, both empirical and what is right to do, was expressed both by patients and their families as well as by clinical geneticists. This thesis concludes that more knowledge about the meaning of unsolicited findings is needed. Genetic counselors and patients should decide together which findings should be disclosed, led by a dialogue in pre-test counseling.

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient's capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While “medical actionability” is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs.

High myopia [refractive error ≤ -6 diopters (D)] is a heterogeneous condition, and without clear accompanying features, it can be difficult to pinpoint a genetic cause. This observational study aimed to evaluate the utility of whole exome sequencing (WES) using an eye disorder gene panel in European patients with high myopia. Patients with high myopia were recruited by ophthalmologists and clinical geneticists. Clinical features were categorized into isolated high myopia, high myopia with other ocular involvement or with systemic involvement. WES was performed and an eye disorder gene panel of ~500 genes was evaluated. Hundred and thirteen patients with high myopia [mean (SD) refractive error - 11.8D (5.2)] were included. Of these, 53% were children younger than 12 years of age (53%), 13.3% were aged 12-18 years and 34% were adults (aged > 18 years). Twenty-three out of 113 patients (20%) received a genetic diagnosis of which 11 patients displayed additional ocular or systemic involvement. Pathogenic variants were identified in retinal dystrophy genes (e.g. GUCY2D and CACNA1F), connective tissue disease genes (e.g. COL18A1 and COL2A1), non-syndromic high myopia genes (ARR3), ocular development genes (e.g. PAX6) and other genes (ASPH and CNNM4). In 20% of our high myopic study population, WES using an eye gene panel enabled us to diagnose the genetic cause for this disorder. Eye genes known to cause retinal dystrophy, developmental or syndromic disorders can cause high myopia without apparent clinical features of other pathology.