How to deal with uncertainty in prenatal genomics: A systematic review of guidelines and policies
- PMID: 34155632
- PMCID: PMC8596644
- DOI: 10.1111/cge.14010
How to deal with uncertainty in prenatal genomics: A systematic review of guidelines and policies
Abstract
Exome sequencing (ES) enhanced the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, but has also increased the possibility of uncertain findings. Prenatal ES is increasingly being offered after a fetal abnormality is detected through ultrasound. It is important to know how to handle uncertainty in this particularly stressful period. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of guidelines available for addressing uncertainty related to prenatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) and ES. Ten uncertainty types associated with prenatal ES and CMA were identified and defined by an international multidisciplinary team. Medline (all) and Embase were systematically searched. Laboratory scientists, clinical geneticists, psychologists, and a fetal medicine specialist screened the papers and performed the data extraction. Nineteen papers were included. Recommendations generally emphasized the importance of trio analysis, clinical information, data sharing, validation and re-analysis, protocols, multidisciplinary teams, genetic counselling, whether to limit the possible scope of results, and when to report particular findings. This systematic review helps provide a vocabulary for uncertainties, and a compass to navigate uncertainties. Prenatal CMA and ES guidelines provide a strong starting point for determining how to handle uncertainty. Gaps in guidelines and recommendations were identified and discussed to provide direction for future research and policy making.
Keywords: chromosomal microarray; health planning guidelines; health policy; practice guidelines; prenatal diagnosis; uncertainty; whole exome sequencing.
© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Genetics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
References
-
- Srebniak MI, Knapen MFCM, Polak M, et al. The influence of SNP‐based chromosomal microarray and NIPT on the diagnostic yield in 10,000 fetuses with and without fetal ultrasound anomalies. Hum Mutat. 2017;38(7):880‐888. - PubMed
-
- Petrovski S, Aggarwal V, Giordano JL, et al. Whole‐exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393(10173):758‐767. - PubMed
-
- ACMG . Board of Directors. Points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing. Genet Med. 2012;14(8):759. - PubMed
-
- 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. - PubMed
-
- Mellis R, Chandler N, Chitty LS. Next‐generation sequencing and the impact on prenatal diagnosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18(8):689‐699. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical