Michael Duyzend, Malika Sud, Alissa M D'Gama, Tabitha Poorvu, Judy Estroff, Monica H Wojcik
{"title":"Going Back in Time: Prenatal Presentations of Postnatal Genetic Diagnoses Made in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.","authors":"Michael Duyzend, Malika Sud, Alissa M D'Gama, Tabitha Poorvu, Judy Estroff, Monica H Wojcik","doi":"10.1002/pd.6710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prenatal genetic diagnosis can impact care across the perinatal continuum; however, prenatal suspicion for genetic disorders may be complicated by incomplete knowledge of fetal rare-disease phenotypes. Here, we describe the prenatal presentations of a cohort of infants with rare genetic conditions who were diagnosed postnatally in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), to characterize prenatal presenting features and evaluate why the diagnosis was not identified prenatally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of infants born over a 7 year period (2017-2023) who were admitted to a Level IV NICU and received a postnatal genetic diagnosis prior to 1 year of age. We identified which of these infants had been imaged prenatally at our Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC) as an opportunity for prenatal genetic diagnosis. Clinical data were abstracted from the medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>51 cases met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the 51 infants were not strongly suspected to have a genetic syndrome prenatally when seen at the MFCC, as evidenced by lack of prenatal genetic consultation and lack of documented suspicion for a genetic etiology. These cases largely had absent or uncertain prenatal phenotypes. In most cases (42/51, 82.4%), prenatal diagnostic testing was not pursued even if offered. Overall, postnatal diagnoses, of which there was one dual diagnosis, were made by karyotype/FISH (11/52, 21.1%), microarray (8/52, 15.4%), gene panel/targeted testing (17/52, 32.7%), or exome sequencing (16/52, 30.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data illustrate the challenges in fetal phenotyping and support a broad approach to prenatal testing to facilitate early genetic diagnosis, which may meaningfully impact postnatal care.</p>","PeriodicalId":20387,"journal":{"name":"Prenatal Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prenatal Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6710","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Prenatal genetic diagnosis can impact care across the perinatal continuum; however, prenatal suspicion for genetic disorders may be complicated by incomplete knowledge of fetal rare-disease phenotypes. Here, we describe the prenatal presentations of a cohort of infants with rare genetic conditions who were diagnosed postnatally in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), to characterize prenatal presenting features and evaluate why the diagnosis was not identified prenatally.
Methods: Retrospective cohort study of infants born over a 7 year period (2017-2023) who were admitted to a Level IV NICU and received a postnatal genetic diagnosis prior to 1 year of age. We identified which of these infants had been imaged prenatally at our Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC) as an opportunity for prenatal genetic diagnosis. Clinical data were abstracted from the medical records.
Results: 51 cases met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the 51 infants were not strongly suspected to have a genetic syndrome prenatally when seen at the MFCC, as evidenced by lack of prenatal genetic consultation and lack of documented suspicion for a genetic etiology. These cases largely had absent or uncertain prenatal phenotypes. In most cases (42/51, 82.4%), prenatal diagnostic testing was not pursued even if offered. Overall, postnatal diagnoses, of which there was one dual diagnosis, were made by karyotype/FISH (11/52, 21.1%), microarray (8/52, 15.4%), gene panel/targeted testing (17/52, 32.7%), or exome sequencing (16/52, 30.8%).
Conclusions: Our data illustrate the challenges in fetal phenotyping and support a broad approach to prenatal testing to facilitate early genetic diagnosis, which may meaningfully impact postnatal care.
期刊介绍:
Prenatal Diagnosis welcomes submissions in all aspects of prenatal diagnosis with a particular focus on areas in which molecular biology and genetics interface with prenatal care and therapy, encompassing: all aspects of fetal imaging, including sonography and magnetic resonance imaging; prenatal cytogenetics, including molecular studies and array CGH; prenatal screening studies; fetal cells and cell-free nucleic acids in maternal blood and other fluids; preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD); prenatal diagnosis of single gene disorders, including metabolic disorders; fetal therapy; fetal and placental development and pathology; development and evaluation of laboratory services for prenatal diagnosis; psychosocial, legal, ethical and economic aspects of prenatal diagnosis; prenatal genetic counseling