Inconsistencies between prenatal diagnostic and genetic testing laboratories on variant validation of rare monogenic diseases

被引:0
|
作者
Lin, Liling [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Ying [1 ]
Pan, Hong [1 ]
Wang, Jingmin [3 ]
Qi, Yu [1 ]
Ma, Yinan [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ First Hosp, Dept Cent Lab, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Dept Clin Lab, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Univ First Hosp, Dept Pediat, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
JOINT-CONSENSUS-RECOMMENDATION; INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES; MITOCHONDRIAL DISEASE; SEQUENCE VARIANTS; MUTATIONS; ASSOCIATION; GENOMICS;
D O I
10.1002/pd.6628
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enhanced the diagnostic efficacy for monogenic diseases, while presenting challenges in achieving consistent diagnoses.MethodWe retrospectively analyzed the concordance rate and reasons for the inconsistency between the original diagnostic result from the genetic testing laboratory and the variant validation result from the prenatal diagnostic center. The validation procedure comprised three stages: validation of variant detection, reevaluation of variant classification, and assessment of recurrence risk, which involved verifying the mode of inheritance and parental carriage.ResultIn total, 17 (6%) of the 286 families affected by rare monogenic diseases showed different results during the variant validation procedure. These cases comprised four (23.5%) with variant detection errors, 12 (70.5%) with inconsistent interpretation, and one (6%) with non-Mendelian inheritance patterns. False-positive NGS results confirmed by Sanger sequencing were related to pseudogenes and GC-rich regions. The classification of the 17 variants was altered in the 12 cases owing to various factors. The case with an atypical inheritance pattern was originally considered autosomal recessive inheritance, but was diagnosed as maternal uniparental disomy after additional genetic analysis.ConclusionWe underscored the significance of variant validation by prenatal diagnostic centers. Families affected by monogenic diseases with reproductive plans should be referred to prenatal genetic centers as early as possible to avoid different results that may postpone subsequent prenatal diagnosis. What's already known about this topic?The inconsistency in variant interpretation among genetic testing laboratories or between clinicians and laboratories is non-neglectable.What does this study addThe study pinpointed three types of inconsistency between genetic testing laboratories and prenatal diagnostic laboratory, and underscored the importance of timely referral to prenatal genetic centers.
引用
收藏
页码:1053 / 1061
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The impact of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) on prenatal diagnostic genetic testing in IVF pregnancies
    Gulersen, Moti
    Baum, Stephanie
    Divon, Michael
    Singer, Tomer
    Minior, Victoria
    Krantz, David
    Bornstein, Eran
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 218 (01) : S378 - S378
  • [42] Diagnostic exome sequencing of Danish families with rare genetic diseases
    Ek, J.
    Risom, L.
    Ostergaard, E.
    Duno, M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2018, 26 : 673 - 674
  • [43] Multisite Evaluation and Validation of Optical Genome Mapping for Prenatal Genetic Testing
    Levy, Brynn
    Liu, Jie
    Iqbal, M. Anwar
    DuPont, Barbara
    Sahajpal, Nikhil
    Ho, Monique
    Yu, Jingwei
    Brody, Sam J.
    Ganapathi, Mythily
    Rajkovic, Aleksandar
    Smolarek, Teresa A.
    Boyar, Fatih
    Bui, Peter
    Dubuc, Adrian M.
    Kolhe, Ravindra
    Stevenson, Roger E.
    JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2024, 26 (10): : 906 - 916
  • [44] How Uncertain Are Patients in Regards to Invasive Prenatal Genetic Diagnostic Testing?
    Milone, Gina F.
    Pastore, Lisa
    Davis, Jay
    Buckley, Ayisha
    Persad, Malini D.
    Herrera, Kimberly M.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 133 : 124S - 124S
  • [45] Prenatal genetic diagnostic testing during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Baptiste, Caitlin
    Sutton, Desmond
    Jacob, Taylor
    Capi, Ana
    Arditi, Brittany
    Syeda, Sbaa K.
    Breslin, Noelle
    Spiegel, Erica
    Chen, Cheng
    Nhan-Chang, Chia-Ling
    Miller, Russell S.
    Simpson, Lynn
    Wapner, Ronald J.
    Fuchs, Karin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 224 (02) : S560 - S561
  • [46] GeneBreaker: Variant simulation to improve the diagnosis of Mendelian rare genetic diseases
    Richmond, Phillip A.
    Av-Shalom, Tamar V.
    Fornes, Oriol
    Modi, Bhavi
    Elliott, Alison M.
    Wasserman, Wyeth W.
    HUMAN MUTATION, 2021, 42 (04) : 346 - 358
  • [47] Prenatal diagnosis following preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions: a single centre record linkage study
    Poulton, Alice
    Menezes, Melody
    Hardy, Tristan
    Lewis, Sharon
    Hui, Lisa
    JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 2025, 42 (01) : 275 - 284
  • [48] Testing for maternal cell contamination in prenatal samples - A comprehensive survey of current diagnostic practices in 35 molecular diagnostic laboratories
    Schrijver, Iris
    Cherny, Sarah C.
    Zehnder, James L.
    JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2007, 9 (03): : 394 - 400
  • [49] Diagnostic delay in rare diseases: between fear and resilience
    Paramo-Rodriguez, Lucia
    Cavero-Carbonell, Clara
    Guardiola-Vilarroig, Sandra
    Lopez-Maside, Aurora
    Gonzalez Sanjuan, M. Eugenia
    Zurriaga, Oscar
    GACETA SANITARIA, 2023, 37
  • [50] Role of Family History and Genetic Testing in Diagnosing Rare Diseases
    Gonzales, Katrina
    Zhong, Weixiong
    Singh, Tripti
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2024, 35 (10):