1. Exploring the factors affecting classification and reporting of uncertain prenatal microarray findings, using a "virtual fetus" model‐a pilot study.
- Author
-
Michaelson‐Cohen, Rachel, Salzer, Liat Sheelo, Brabbing‐Goldstein, Dana, Yaron, Yuval, Reches, Adi, Yonath, Hagith, Regev, Miriam, Shani, Hagit, Altarescu, Gheona, Segel, Reeval, Sukenik‐Halevy, Rivka, Daum, Hagit, Harel, Tamar, Meiner, Vardiella, Basel‐Salmon, Lina, Sagi‐Dain, Lena, and Maya, Idit
- Abstract
Objective: Significant discrepancy exists between laboratories in classification and reporting of copy number variants (CNVs). Studies exploring factors affecting prenatal CNV management are rare. Our "virtual fetus" pilot study examines these factors. Method: Ten prenatally diagnosed CNVs of uncertain significance (VUS) > 1Mb, encompassing OMIM‐morbid genes, inherited from healthy parents, were classified by 15 MD geneticists from laboratory, prenatal, and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) units. Geneticists addressed factors affecting classification, obligation to report, and recommendation for invasive testing or PGT. Results: CNVs were classified likely benign (10.7%), VUS (74.7%), likely pathogenic (8.7%), or pathogenic (6.0%). Classification discrepancy was higher for losses versus gains. Classifying pathogenic/likely pathogenic was more common for losses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.9, 95% CI 1.55–76.9), and geneticists specializing in gynecology (aOR 4.9, 95% CI 1.03–23.3). 84.0% of respondents would report CNVs, depending on classification and family phenotype. Invasive testing in pregnancies was recommended for 29.3% of CNVs, depending on the classification and geneticist's specialization. PGT was recommended for 32.4%, depending on classification, experience years, and family's phenotype (38.0% for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization irrespectively, 26.7% otherwise). Conclusion: Factors affecting CNV classification/reporting are mainly dosage, family phenotype, geneticist specialization and experience. Understanding factors from our pilot study may facilitate developing an algorithm for clinical consensus and optimal management. Key points: What's already known about this topic?Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) currently constitutes the first‐tier test in genetic evaluation of fetuses. Although the utilization of CMA is well established, the clinical dilemmas it causes remain complex since the phenotype of many copy number variants (CNVs) cannot be accurately estimated prenatally. CNVs with scarce data and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) frequently cause patient stress. Despite constant guideline updates, significant inconsistency exists in CNV classification and reporting by different laboratories. What does this study add?In our "virtual fetus" model we found large variability in interpreting prenatal CMA results. Copy number losses versus gains, familial phenotype of variants, and clinician's background (medical field, years of experience) were found to have a major impact on how variants are interpreted and reported, and recommendations given for preimplantation/prenatal testing in subsequent pregnancies. Awareness of variation in interpretation and complexity in clinical decisions regarding CNVs may standardize optimal prenatal management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF