Genes · 2025
Prenatal Exome Sequencing: When Does Diagnostic Yield Meet Clinical Utility?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Carrer Alessia, Crupano Francesco Maria, Rinaldi Berardo, Scuvera Giulietta, Cesaretti Claudia, Nicotra Valeria, Gangi Silvana, Colombo Lorenzo, Araimo Gabriella, Tagliabue Matilde, Marchetti Daniela, Pezzoli Laura, Garzo Maria, Accurti Veronica, Volpe Grazia, Boito Simona, Finelli Palma, Fumagalli Monica, Bedeschi Maria Francesca, Iascone Maria, Persico Nicola, Natacci Federica
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Prenatal Exome Sequencing (pES) has revolutionized prenatal diagnosis in fetuses with congenital anomalies. Although its performance is very promising, previous pES studies have mainly focused on diagnostic yield, often without considering the actual impact on ongoing pregnancies. In this study, we aim to (1) assess whether a prenatal molecular diagnosis can reliably predict the clinical features of the unborn child and (2) determine the gestational age (gw) at which ultrasound (US) findings are sufficient to support the pathogenicity of genetic variants detected by pES.
METHODS: We retrospectively selected 47 cases complicated by US anomalies that underwent Exome Sequencing (ES) and for which complete clinical assessment was available. A blinded reanalysis of ES data was performed, considering only prenatal features.
RESULTS: In our cohort, standard ES led to a molecular diagnosis in 43% of cases. The blinded reanalysis revealed that a complete or partial retrospective prenatal diagnosis was achievable in 95% of diagnosed cases. The mean gestational week at which US data would have supported molecular diagnosis was 22 + 5 weeks. The clinical follow-up confirmed a syndromic presentation in 21 out of 23 newborns and in all terminated pregnancies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study further confirms that pES is a valuable diagnostic tool for detecting genetic etiology in fetuses with congenital malformations. In most cases, pES results accurately predict the postnatal phenotype. However, the prenatal setting requires specific adjustments and precautions, and a negative pES result cannot be considered reassuring.
METHODS: We retrospectively selected 47 cases complicated by US anomalies that underwent Exome Sequencing (ES) and for which complete clinical assessment was available. A blinded reanalysis of ES data was performed, considering only prenatal features.
RESULTS: In our cohort, standard ES led to a molecular diagnosis in 43% of cases. The blinded reanalysis revealed that a complete or partial retrospective prenatal diagnosis was achievable in 95% of diagnosed cases. The mean gestational week at which US data would have supported molecular diagnosis was 22 + 5 weeks. The clinical follow-up confirmed a syndromic presentation in 21 out of 23 newborns and in all terminated pregnancies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study further confirms that pES is a valuable diagnostic tool for detecting genetic etiology in fetuses with congenital malformations. In most cases, pES results accurately predict the postnatal phenotype. However, the prenatal setting requires specific adjustments and precautions, and a negative pES result cannot be considered reassuring.