Challenges and Pragmatic Solutions in Pre-Test and Post-Test Genetic Counseling for Prenatal Exome Sequencing

References

• American College of O, Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 162: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):e108–e122. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Boter M, Oudesluijs GO, et al. Genomic SNP array as a gold standard for prenatal diagnosis of foetal ultrasound abnormalities. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5(1):14. doi:10.1186/1755-8166-5-14
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robson SC, Chitty LS, Morris S, 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. Effic Mechan Eval. 2017;4(1):1–04. doi:10.3310/eme04010
   Google Scholar
• Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY, et al. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393(10173):747–757. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31940-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan KG, Leach NT, Pekarek D, et al. The use of fetal exome sequencing in prenatal diagnosis: a points to consider document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(4):675–680. doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0731-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diderich K, Joosten M, Govaerts L, et al. Is it feasible to select fetuses for prenatal WES based on the prenatal phenotype?. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39(11):1039–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diderich KEM, Romijn K, Joosten M, et al. The potential diagnostic yield of whole exome sequencing in pregnancies complicated by fetal ultrasound anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;2020:1.
   Google Scholar
• Joosten M, Diderich KE, Van Opstal D, et al. Clinical experience of unexpected findings in prenatal array testing. Biomark Med. 2016;10(8):831–840. doi:10.2217/bmm-2016-0054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Koning MA, Haak MC, Adama van Scheltema PN, et al. From diagnostic yield to clinical impact: a pilot study on the implementation of prenatal exome sequencing in routine care. Genet Med. 2019;21(10):2303–2310. doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0499-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deden C, Neveling K, Zafeiropopoulou D, et al. Rapid whole exome sequencing in pregnancies to identify the underlying genetic cause in fetuses with congenital anomalies detected by ultrasound imaging. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40(8):972–983. doi:10.1002/pd.5717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corsten-Janssen N, Bouman K, Diphoorn JCD, et al. A prospective study on rapid exome sequencing as a diagnostic test for multiple congenital anomalies on fetal ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40:1300–1309. doi:10.1002/pd.5781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellis R, Chandler N, Chitty LS. Next-generation sequencing and the impact on prenatal diagnosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18(8):689–699. doi:10.1080/14737159.2018.1493924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, et al. The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J Med Genet. 2015;52(7):431–437. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1):6–9. doi:10.1002/pd.5195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthijs G, Souche E, Alders M, et al. Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing. Euro J Human Genet. 2016;24(1):2–5. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallis Y, Payne S, McAnulty C, et al. Practice guidelines for the evaluation of pathogenicity and the reporting of sequence variants in clinical molecular genetics. Assoc Clin Genet Sci Dutch Soc Clin Genet Labor Spec. 2013;2013:1.
   Google Scholar
• Acmg_Board_of_Directors. Points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing. Genet Med. 2012;14(8):759. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cornthwaite M, Turner K, Armstrong L, et al. Impact of variation in practice in the prenatal reporting of variants of uncertain significance by commercial laboratories: need for greater adherence to published guidelines. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(12):1514–1524. doi:10.1002/pd.6232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Diderich KE, Govaerts LC, et al. Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(7):856–858. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Euro J Human Genet. 2013;21(6):580–584. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med. 2011;13(6):499–504. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klapwijk JE, Srebniak MI, Go A, et al. How to deal with uncertainty in prenatal genomics: a systematic review of guidelines and policies. Clin Genet. 2021;100(6):647–658. doi:10.1111/cge.14010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vears DF, Senecal K, Clarke AJ, et al. Points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic genomic sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26(1):36–43. doi:10.1038/s41431-017-0043-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2. 0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2017;19(2):249–255. doi:10.1038/gim.2016.190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegde M, Bale S, Bayrak-Toydemir P, et al. Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing—a clinical laboratory perspective: a report of the association for molecular pathology. J Mol Diag. 2015;17(2):107–117. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller DT, Lee K, Chung WK, et al. Correction to: ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2021;23(8):1582–1584. doi:10.1038/s41436-021-01278-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hufnagel SB, Antommaria AH. Laboratory policies on reporting secondary findings in clinical whole exome sequencing: initial uptake of the ACMG’s recommendations. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A(5):1328–1331. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36398
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Armour CM, Dougan SD, Brock J-A, 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(4):215–221. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-105013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, Lewis C, Chitty L. Offering prenatal diagnostic tests: European guidelines for clinical practice [corrected]. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(5):580–586. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vetro A, Bouman K, Hastings R, et al. The introduction of arrays in prenatal diagnosis: a special challenge. Hum Mutat. 2012;33(6):923–929. doi:10.1002/humu.22050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner C, Wellesley D, Kilby MD, Kerr B. Joint Committee on Genomics in M. Recommendations for the use of chromosome microarray in pregnancy. London. 2015;2015:290615.
   Google Scholar
• Vanakker O, Vilain C, Janssens K, et al. Implementation of genomic arrays in prenatal diagnosis: the Belgian approach to meet the challenges. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57(4):151–156. doi:10.1016/j.ejmg.2014.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suela J, López-Expósito I, Querejeta ME, et al. Recommendations for the use of microarrays in prenatal diagnosis. Med Clín. 2017;148(7):328.e1–328. e8. doi:10.1016/j.medcle.2016.12.065
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dugoff L, Norton ME, Kuller JA. The use of chromosomal microarray for prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):B2–B9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.07.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Steen SL, Bunnik EM, Polak MG, et al. Choosing between higher and lower resolution microarrays: do pregnant women have sufficient knowledge to make informed choices consistent with their attitude? J Genet Couns. 2018;27(1):85–94. doi:10.1007/s10897-017-0124-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy B, Wapner R. Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(2):201–212. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darilek S, Ward P, Pursley A, et al. Pre- and postnatal genetic testing by array-comparative genomic hybridization: genetic counseling perspectives. Genet Med. 2008;10(1):13–18. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f1ddb
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak M, Boter M, Oudesluijs G, et al. Application of SNP array for rapid prenatal diagnosis: implementation, genetic counselling and diagnostic flow. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19(12):1230–1237. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGillivray G, Rosenfeld JA, McKinlay Gardner RJ, Gillam LH. Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(4):389–395. doi:10.1002/pd.3849
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klugman S, Suskin B, Spencer BL, et al. Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis: report of first 6 months in clinical practice. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;27:1333–1338. doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.858243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riedijk S, Diderich KEM, van der Steen SL, et al. The psychological challenges of replacing conventional karyotyping with genomic SNP array analysis in prenatal testing. J Clin Med. 2014;3(3):713–723. doi:10.3390/jcm3030713
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vora NL, Gilmore K, Brandt A, et al. An approach to integrating exome sequencing for fetal structural anomalies into clinical practice. Genet Med. 2020;22(5):954–961. doi:10.1038/s41436-020-0750-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerfield LE, Stover SR, Mathur VS, et al. Reproductive genetic counseling challenges associated with diagnostic exome sequencing in a large academic private reproductive genetic counseling practice. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(10):1022–1029. doi:10.1002/pd.4674
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claustres M, Kožich V, Dequeker E, et al. Recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genetic testing (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic). Euro J Human Genet. 2014;22(2):160–170. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva M, De Leeuw N, Mann K, et al. European guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic analysis. Euro J Human Genet. 2019;27(1):1–16. doi:10.1038/s41431-018-0244-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazier J, Hartley T, Brock JA, et al. Clinical application of fetal genome-wide sequencing during pregnancy: position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J Med Genet. 2021;59:931–937. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107897
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Directors AB. ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med. 2015;17(1):68–69. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.151
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(3):248–255. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saelaert M, Mertes H, Moerenhout T, De Baere E, Devisch I. Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres. BMC Med Genom. 2019;12(1):123. doi:10.1186/s12920-019-0561-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Schoot V, Damste C, Yntema HG, Brunner HG, Oerlemans AJM. Clinical geneticists’ views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next-generation sequencing: “A great technology creating new dilemmas”. J Genet Couns. 2022;32:387–396. doi:10.1002/jgc4.1647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1):10–19. doi:10.1002/pd.5102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn R, Parker M. Opening Pandora’s box?: ethical issues in prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38(1):20–25. doi:10.1002/pd.5114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilby MD, Mackie FL, Cox P. The role of Next Generation Sequencing in the investigation of ultrasound identified fetal structural anomalies. BJOG. 2020;127:1507–1515. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16533
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hammond J, Klapwijk JE, Hill M, et al. Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: insights using Han’s taxonomy of uncertainty. J Genet Couns. 2020;30:198–210. doi:10.1002/jgc4.1311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Van Opstal D, Joosten M, et al. Whole-genome array as a first-line cytogenetic test in prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(4):363–372. doi:10.1002/uog.14745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu P, Meng L, Normand EA, et al. Reanalysis of clinical exome sequencing data. New England J Med. 2019;380(25):2478–2480. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1812033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kono M, Niizawa M, Takeichi T, Muro Y, Akiyama M. Hailey-Hailey disease due to ATP2C1 splice site mutation, successfully treated with minocycline hydrochloride. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32(1):e19–e20. doi:10.1111/jdv.14439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srebniak MI, Diderich KE, Joosten M, et al. Prenatal SNP array testing in 1000 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: causative, unexpected and susceptibility CNVs. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(5):645–651. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Schoot V, Haer-Wigman L, Feenstra I, et al. Lessons learned from unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing of 16,482 individuals. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30(2):170–177. doi:10.1038/s41431-021-00964-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar