产前无细胞 DNA 筛查与性染色体非整倍体诊断结果不一致:对新生儿筛查和遗传咨询的影响

IF 4 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY International Journal of Neonatal Screening Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.3390/ijns10030048
S. Howell, Shanlee M. Davis, Billie J. Carstens, Mary Haag, Judith L. Ross, Nicole R. Tartaglia
{"title":"产前无细胞 DNA 筛查与性染色体非整倍体诊断结果不一致:对新生儿筛查和遗传咨询的影响","authors":"S. Howell, Shanlee M. Davis, Billie J. Carstens, Mary Haag, Judith L. Ross, Nicole R. Tartaglia","doi":"10.3390/ijns10030048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) collectively occur in 1 in 500 livebirths, and diagnoses in the neonatal period are increasing with advancements in prenatal and early genetic testing. Inevitably, SCA will be identified on either routine prenatal or newborn screening in the near future. Tetrasomy SCAs are rare, manifesting more significant phenotypes compared to trisomies. Prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has been demonstrated to have relatively poor positive predictive values (PPV) in SCAs, directing genetic counseling discussions towards false-positive likelihood rather than thoroughly addressing all possible outcomes and phenotypes, respectively. The eXtraordinarY Babies study is a natural history study of children prenatally identified with SCAs, and it developed a longitudinal data resource and common data elements with the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN). A review of cfDNA and diagnostic reports from participants identified a higher than anticipated rate of discordance. The aims of this project are to (1) compare our findings to outcomes from a regional clinical cytogenetic laboratory and (2) describe discordant outcomes from both samples. Twenty-one (10%), and seven (8.3%) cases were found to be discordant between cfDNA (result or indication reported to lab) and diagnosis for the Babies Study and regional laboratory, respectively. Discordant results represented six distinct discordance categories when comparing cfDNA to diagnostic results, with the largest groups being Trisomy cfDNA vs. Tetrasomy diagnosis (66.7% of discordance in eXtraordinarY Babies study) and Mosaicism (57.1% in regional laboratory). Traditional genetic counseling for SCA-related cfDNA results is inadequate given a high degree of discordance that jeopardizes the accuracy of the information discussed and informed decision making following prenatal genetic counseling.","PeriodicalId":14159,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discordant Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening vs. Diagnostic Results of Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies: Implications for Newborn Screening and Genetic Counseling\",\"authors\":\"S. Howell, Shanlee M. Davis, Billie J. Carstens, Mary Haag, Judith L. Ross, Nicole R. Tartaglia\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ijns10030048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) collectively occur in 1 in 500 livebirths, and diagnoses in the neonatal period are increasing with advancements in prenatal and early genetic testing. Inevitably, SCA will be identified on either routine prenatal or newborn screening in the near future. Tetrasomy SCAs are rare, manifesting more significant phenotypes compared to trisomies. Prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has been demonstrated to have relatively poor positive predictive values (PPV) in SCAs, directing genetic counseling discussions towards false-positive likelihood rather than thoroughly addressing all possible outcomes and phenotypes, respectively. The eXtraordinarY Babies study is a natural history study of children prenatally identified with SCAs, and it developed a longitudinal data resource and common data elements with the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN). A review of cfDNA and diagnostic reports from participants identified a higher than anticipated rate of discordance. The aims of this project are to (1) compare our findings to outcomes from a regional clinical cytogenetic laboratory and (2) describe discordant outcomes from both samples. Twenty-one (10%), and seven (8.3%) cases were found to be discordant between cfDNA (result or indication reported to lab) and diagnosis for the Babies Study and regional laboratory, respectively. Discordant results represented six distinct discordance categories when comparing cfDNA to diagnostic results, with the largest groups being Trisomy cfDNA vs. Tetrasomy diagnosis (66.7% of discordance in eXtraordinarY Babies study) and Mosaicism (57.1% in regional laboratory). Traditional genetic counseling for SCA-related cfDNA results is inadequate given a high degree of discordance that jeopardizes the accuracy of the information discussed and informed decision making following prenatal genetic counseling.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Neonatal Screening\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Neonatal Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns10030048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns10030048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

每 500 个活产婴儿中就有 1 个出现性染色体非整倍体(SCA),随着产前和早期基因检测技术的进步,新生儿期的诊断率也在不断提高。在不久的将来,常规产前筛查或新生儿筛查将不可避免地发现 SCA。四体综合征 SCA 比较罕见,与三体综合征相比,其表现型更为显著。产前无细胞 DNA(cfDNA)筛查已被证明对 SCA 的阳性预测值(PPV)相对较低,这导致遗传咨询的讨论偏向于假阳性的可能性,而不是彻底讨论所有可能的结果和表型。eXtraordinarY Babies 研究是一项针对产前发现患有 SCAs 儿童的自然史研究,它与新生儿筛查转化研究网络 (NBSTRN) 共同开发了纵向数据资源和通用数据元素。对参与者的 cfDNA 和诊断报告进行审查后发现,不一致率高于预期。本项目的目的是:(1)将我们的研究结果与地区性临床细胞遗传实验室的结果进行比较;(2)描述两种样本的不一致结果。婴儿研究 "和地区实验室分别发现 21 例(10%)和 7 例(8.3%)cfDNA(向实验室报告的结果或指征)与诊断结果不一致。在比较 cfDNA 与诊断结果时,不一致的结果有六个不同的不一致类别,其中最大的类别是三体综合征 cfDNA 与四体综合征诊断不一致(eXtraordinarY 婴儿研究的不一致比例为 66.7%)和嵌合体(区域实验室的不一致比例为 57.1%)。鉴于高度不一致性,针对 SCA 相关 cfDNA 结果的传统遗传咨询是不充分的,这会危及产前遗传咨询后所讨论信息和知情决策的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Discordant Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening vs. Diagnostic Results of Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies: Implications for Newborn Screening and Genetic Counseling
Sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) collectively occur in 1 in 500 livebirths, and diagnoses in the neonatal period are increasing with advancements in prenatal and early genetic testing. Inevitably, SCA will be identified on either routine prenatal or newborn screening in the near future. Tetrasomy SCAs are rare, manifesting more significant phenotypes compared to trisomies. Prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has been demonstrated to have relatively poor positive predictive values (PPV) in SCAs, directing genetic counseling discussions towards false-positive likelihood rather than thoroughly addressing all possible outcomes and phenotypes, respectively. The eXtraordinarY Babies study is a natural history study of children prenatally identified with SCAs, and it developed a longitudinal data resource and common data elements with the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN). A review of cfDNA and diagnostic reports from participants identified a higher than anticipated rate of discordance. The aims of this project are to (1) compare our findings to outcomes from a regional clinical cytogenetic laboratory and (2) describe discordant outcomes from both samples. Twenty-one (10%), and seven (8.3%) cases were found to be discordant between cfDNA (result or indication reported to lab) and diagnosis for the Babies Study and regional laboratory, respectively. Discordant results represented six distinct discordance categories when comparing cfDNA to diagnostic results, with the largest groups being Trisomy cfDNA vs. Tetrasomy diagnosis (66.7% of discordance in eXtraordinarY Babies study) and Mosaicism (57.1% in regional laboratory). Traditional genetic counseling for SCA-related cfDNA results is inadequate given a high degree of discordance that jeopardizes the accuracy of the information discussed and informed decision making following prenatal genetic counseling.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Neonatal Screening
International Journal of Neonatal Screening Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Incidence of Inborn Errors of Metabolism and Endocrine Disorders Among 40965 Newborn Infants at Riyadh Second Health Cluster of the Ministry of Health Saudi Arabia. A Systematic Literature Review on the Global Status of Newborn Screening for Mucopolysaccharidosis II. The Value of Reducing Inconclusive and False-Positive Newborn Screening Results for Congenital Hypothyroidism, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Maple Syrup Urine Disease in The Netherlands. Newborn Screening for Sickle Cell Disease in Catalonia between 2015 and 2022-Epidemiology and Impact on Clinical Events. Prevalence and Mutation Analysis of Short-Chain acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency Detected by Newborn Screening in Hefei, China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1