Prenatal diagnosis · 2026
Gene Panel Versus Whole Exome Sequencing for Fetal Anomalies.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Swanson Kate, Shear Matthew A, Sparks Teresa N, Sahin-Hodoglugil Nuriye N, Lianoglou Billie R, Norton Mary E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Exome sequencing (ES) and gene panels can be considered for fetal anomalies. Whether ES offers substantial benefit over targeted panels is not clear.
METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of pregnancies with fetal anomalies undergoing ES. We included cases with isolated or multisystem skeletal dysplasias, CNS anomalies, and/or cardiac anomalies. Participants underwent ES, and pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic (LP) variants were reported. The primary outcome was the percentage of P/LP variants found on ES that would have been identified on panels available prenatally in the United States.
RESULTS: 109 cases with relevant anomalies were included in the primary analysis. Of these, 20 (18%) had P/LP variant(s) identified on ES-4 multisystem, 4 isolated CNS, 6 isolated cardiac, and 6 isolated skeletal dysplasia. Gene panels would have detected 50 (88%) of the variants identified by ES. Yield was highest for isolated skeletal anomalies (100%) compared to CNS and cardiac malformations (75% and 67%, p = 0.02). Yield was higher for isolated anomalies than multisystem anomalies (median 91.5% vs. 50%, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of fetal anomalies with genetic etiologies identified on ES, commercial gene panels had variable diagnostic yields. Panels performed worst for multisystem anomalies.
METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of pregnancies with fetal anomalies undergoing ES. We included cases with isolated or multisystem skeletal dysplasias, CNS anomalies, and/or cardiac anomalies. Participants underwent ES, and pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic (LP) variants were reported. The primary outcome was the percentage of P/LP variants found on ES that would have been identified on panels available prenatally in the United States.
RESULTS: 109 cases with relevant anomalies were included in the primary analysis. Of these, 20 (18%) had P/LP variant(s) identified on ES-4 multisystem, 4 isolated CNS, 6 isolated cardiac, and 6 isolated skeletal dysplasia. Gene panels would have detected 50 (88%) of the variants identified by ES. Yield was highest for isolated skeletal anomalies (100%) compared to CNS and cardiac malformations (75% and 67%, p = 0.02). Yield was higher for isolated anomalies than multisystem anomalies (median 91.5% vs. 50%, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of fetal anomalies with genetic etiologies identified on ES, commercial gene panels had variable diagnostic yields. Panels performed worst for multisystem anomalies.