Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-zxw8g Total loading time: 1.939 Render date: 2023-02-01T17:29:53.198Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Chapter 4 - Human Genetics and Fetal Disease: Assessment of the Fetal Genome

from Section 1: - General Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Mark D. Kilby
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Anthony Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Dick Oepkes
Affiliation:
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Get access

Summary

Structural fetal anomalies complicate up to 5% of pregnancies and an underlying chromosomal or genetic etiology underlies up to half of cases. Understanding the fetal genome is increasingly key in attempting to make a prenatal diagnosis and in delineating a prognosis for the baby. Over the past decades, the field of prenatal genomics has advanced exponentially, beginning with the conventional ‘full’ karyotype available in the 1960s and going up to the present day and beyond with the application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) (Figure 4.1). Current and potential future advances in prenatal diagnostics will allow couples to make more informed decisions prospectively about their pregnancies in addition to aiding decisions on and the development of fetal therapies [1]. In the wake of advancing technologies and large prospective studies such as the United Kingdom’s ‘proof of principle’ 100 000 Genomes Project [2] and the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study [3], the degree of information obtained and turnaround time of results with the development of more sophisticated bioinformatic analytical pathways is likely to improve rapidly. Fetal medicine subspecialists, obstetricians, pediatricians, geneticists, genomic scientists and genetic counselors have a responsibility to stay up to date with this wealth of advances so that couples can be informed accordingly.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
, pp. 36 - 47
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Horn, R, Parker, M. Opening Pandora’s box?: ethical issues in prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 2025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genomics England. 2018. 100,000 Genomes Project. https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk
Lord, J, McMullan, DJ, Eberhardt, RY, Rinck, G, Hamilton, SJ, Quinlan-Jones, E, et al. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet. 2019; 393: 747–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme Handbook. London: Public Health England, 2018.
Nicolaides, KH. Nuchal translucency and other first-trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 4567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine. The Combined Test. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/wolfson/services/antenatal-screening/screening-tests/combined-test
Chiu, RW, Lo, YM. Clinical applications of maternal plasma fetal DNA analysis: translating the fruits of 15 years of research. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013; 51: 197204.Google Scholar
Gil, MM, Brik, M, Casanova, C, Martin-Alonso, R, Verdejo, M, Ramírez, E, Santacruz, B. Screening for trisomies 21 and 18 in a Spanish public hospital: from the combined test to the cell-free DNA test. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30: 2476–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinante, V, Keller, B, Huhn, EA, Huang, D, Lapaire, O, Manegold-Brauer, G. Impact of nationwide health insurance coverage for non-invasive prenatal testing. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 141: 189–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, C, Hill, M, Silcock, C, Daley, R, Chitty, LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: a cross-sectional survey of service users’ views and likely uptake. BJOG. 2014; 121: 582–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, FL, Hemming, K, Allen, S, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. BJOG. 2017; 124: 3246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil, MM, Accurti, V, Santacruz, B, Plana, MN, Nicolaides, KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 302–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Hui, L, Tabor, A, Walker, SP, Kilby, MD. How to safeguard competency and training in invasive prenatal diagnosis: ‘the elephant in the room’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, M, Cnattingius, S, Villamor, E, Söderling, J, Pasternak, B, Stephansson, O, Neovius, M. Risk of major congenital malformations in relation to maternal overweight and obesity severity: cohort study of 1.2 million singletons. BMJ. 2017; 357: j2563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chitty, LS. Cell-free DNA testing: an aid to prenatal sonographic diagnosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 ; 28 : 453–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogilvie, CM, Lashwood, A, Chitty, L, Waters, JJ, Scriven, PN, Flinter, F. The future of prenatal diagnosis: rapid testing or full karyotype? An audit of chromosome abnormalities and pregnancy outcomes for women referred for Down’s Syndrome testing. BJOG. 2005; 112: 1369–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stosic, M, Levy, B, Wapner, R. The Use of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018; 45: 5568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, S, Wou, K, Vora, N, Van der Veyver, IB, Wapner, R, Chitty, LS. Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, Perinatal Quality Foundation. Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 69.CrossRef
Luthardt, FW, Keitges, E. Chromosomal Syndromes and Genetic Disease. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.Google Scholar
Nadler, HL, Gerbie, AB. Role of amniocentesis in the intrauterine detection of genetic disorders. N Engl J Med. 1970; 282: 596–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolini, U, Lalatta, F, Natacci, F, Curcio, C, Bui, TH. The introduction of QF-PCR in prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: time for reconsideration. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10: 541–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ockeloen, CW, Willemsen, MH, de Munnik, S, van Bon, BW, de Leeuw, N, Verrips, A, et al. Further delineation of the KBG syndrome phenotype caused by ANKRD11 aberrations. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 23: 1176–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Hillman, SC, McMullan, DJ, Hall, G, Togneri, FS, James, N, Maher, EJ, et al. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41: 610–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, SC, Chitty, LS, Morris, S, Verhoef, T, Ambler, G, Wellesley, DG, et al. Evaluation of array comparative genomic hybridisation in prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies: a multicentre cohort study with cost analysis and assessment of patient, health professional and commissioner preferences for array comparative genomic hybridisation. Efficacy Mech Eval. 2017; 4(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, SC, McMullan, DJ, Silcock, L, Maher, ER, Kilby, MD. How does altering the resolution of chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal setting affect the rates of pathological and uncertain findings? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 27: 649–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wapner, RJ, Levy, B, Ballif, BC, Eng, CM, Zachary, JM, Savage, M, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 2175–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wapner, RJ, Zachary, J, Clifton, R. Change in classification of prenatal microarray analysis copy number variants over time [abstract]. Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35 (Suppl. S1): 126.Google Scholar
Xia, Y, Yang, Y, Huang, S, Wu, Y, Li, P, Zhuang, J. Clinical application of chromosomal microarray analysis for the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with congenital heart disease. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 406413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egloff, M, Hervé, B, Quibel, T, Jaillard, S, Le Bouar, G, Uguen, K, et al. Diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency: a French multicenter retrospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 52: 715–21.Google Scholar
Richards, S, Aziz, N, Bale, S, Bick, D, Das, S, Gastier-Foster, J, et al. 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. Genet Med. 2015; 17: 405–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215: B2–9.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 1374–7.
Armour, CM, Dougan, SD, Brock, JA, Chari, R, Chodirker, BN, DeBie, I, et al. Practice guideline: joint CCMG-SOGC recommendations for the use of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis and assessment of fetal loss in Canada. J Med Genet. 2018; 55: 215221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, C, Wellesley, D, Kilby, MD, Bronwyn, K, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Genomics in Medicine (2015). G144: Recommendations for the use of chromosome microarray in pregnancy. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/uploaded/bdde58eb-4852-4ce8-95f6325a71c3d550.pdf
Yang, Y, Muzny, DM, Reid, JG, Bainbridge, MN, Willis, A, Ward, PA, et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of Mendelian disorders. N Eng J Med. 2013; 369: 1502–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study. Large-scale discovery of novel genetic causes of developmental disorders. Nature. 2015; 519: 223–8.
Ku, CS, Naidoo, N, Pawitan, Y. Revisiting Mendelian disorders through exome sequencing. Hum Genet. 2011; 129: 351–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandler, N, Best, S, Hayward, J, Faravelli, F, Mansour, S, Kivuva, E, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis using targeted exome sequencing: a cohort study to assess feasibility and potential impact on prenatal counseling and pregnancy management. Genet Med. 2018; 20: 1430–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinlan-Jones, E, Lord, J, Williams, D, Hamilton, S, Marton, T, Eberhardt, RY, et al. Molecular autopsy by trio exome sequencing (ES) and postmortem examination in fetuses and neonates with prenatally identified structural anomalies. Genet Med. 2018; 21: 1065–73.Google ScholarPubMed
Carss, KJ, Hillman, SC, Parthiban, V, McMullan, DJ, Maher, ER, Kilby, MD, Hurles, ME. Exome sequencing improves genetic diagnosis of structural fetal abnormalities revealed by ultrasound. Hum Mol Genet. 2014; 23: 3269–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talkowski, ME, Ordulu, Z, Pillalamarri, V, Benson, CB, Blumenthal, I, Connolly, S, et al. Clinical diagnosis by whole-genome sequencing of a prenatal sample. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 2226–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodian, DL, Klein, E, Iyer, RK, Wong, WS, Kothiyal, P, Stauffer, D, et al. Utility of whole-genome sequencing for detection of newborn screening disorders in a population cohort of 1,696 neonates. Genet Med. 2016; 18: 221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 1374–7
Joint Committee on Medical Genetics (2011). Consent and confidentiality in clinical genetic practice: Guidance on genetic testing and sharing genetic information. https://www.bsgm.org.uk/media/678746/consent_and_confidentiality_2011.pdf

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×