What is the meaning of a ‘genomic result’ in the context of pregnancy?

Abstract

Prenatal genetic testing and analysis in the past was usually only offered when a particular fetal phenotype was noted or suspected, meaning that filtering and interpretation of genetic variants identified could be anchored in attempts to explain an existing health concern. Advanced genomic testing is now increasingly used in “low-risk” pregnancies, producing information on genotype adrift of the phenotypic data that is necessary to give it meaning, thus increasing the difficulty in predicting whether and how particular genetic variants might affect future development and health. A challenge to healthcare scientists, clinicians, and parents therefore is deciding what qualities prenatal genotypic variation should have in order to be constructed as a ‘result.’ At the same time, such tests are often re requested in order to make binary decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy or not. As a range of professional organizations develop guidelines on the use of advanced genomic testing during pregnancy, we highlight the particular difficulties of discovering ambiguous findings such as variants with uncertain clinical significance, susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental problems and susceptibility to adult-onset diseases. We aim to foster international discussions about how decisions around disclosure are made and how uncertainty is communicated.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    van der Steen SL, Bunnik EM, Polak MG, Diderich KEM, Verhagen-Visser J, Govaerts LCP, et al. Choosing between higher and lower resolution microarrays: do pregnant women have sufficient knowledge to make informed choices consistent with their attitude? J Genet Couns. 2018;27:85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Stern S, Hacohen N, Meiner V, Yagel S, Zenvirt S, Shkedi-Rafid S, et al. Universal chromosomal microarray analysis reveals high proportion of copy number variants in low risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22026.

  3. 3.

    Feldkamp ML, Carey JC, Byrne JLB, Krikov S, Botto LD. Etiology and clinical presentation of birth defects: population based study. BMJ. 2017;357:j2249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ahmad AS, Ormiston-Smith N, Sasieni PD. Trends in the lifetime risk of developing cancer in Great Britain: comparison of risk for those born from 1930 to 1960. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:943–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pedersen CB, Mors O, Bertelsen A, Waltoft BL, Agerbo E, McGrath JJ, et al. A comprehensive nationwide study of the incidence rate and lifetime risk for treated mental disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71:573–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Foundation BH UK Factsheet; 2018. https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-statistics.

  7. 7.

    Rochon M, Eddleman K. Controversial ultrasound findings. Obstet Gynecol Clin NAm. 2004;31:61–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pisapia JM, Sinha S, Zarnow DM, Johnson MP, Heuer GG. Fetal ventriculomegaly: Diagnosis, treatment, and future directions. Childs Nerv Syst. 2017;33:1113–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, Korbel JO, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526:68–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cassa CA, Tong MY, Jordan DM. Large numbers of genetic variants considered to be pathogenic are common in asymptomatic individuals. Hum Mutat. 2013;34:1216–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Committee on Genetics and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Committee Opinion No. 682: microarrays and next-generation sequencing technology: the use of advanced genetic diagnostic tools in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:e262–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Vanakker O, Vilain C, Janssens K, Van der Aa N, Smits GB, et al. Implementation of genomic arrays in prenatal diagnosis: the Belgian approach to meet the challenges. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57:151–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gardiner C, Wellesley D, Kilby MD, Kerr B. Recommendations for the use of chromosome microarray in pregnancy. Royal College of Pathologists, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society; 2015. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/06664c28-0f90-4230-86158c91fea14be6/Recommendations-for-the-use-of-chromosome-microarray-in-pregnancy.pdf.

  14. 14.

    Genetics ACoOaGCo Committee Opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1374–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ferretti L, Mellis R, Chitty LS. Update on the use of exome sequencing in the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. Eur J Med Genet. 2019;62:103663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.05.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Horton RH, Lucassen AM. Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine. Clin Sci. 2019;133:697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cooper GM, Coe BP, Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Vu TH, Baker C, et al. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nat Genet. 2011;43:838–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kaminsky EB, Kaul V, Paschall J, Church DM, Bunke B, Kunig D, et al. An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities. Genet Med. 2011;13:777–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Westerfield L, Darilek S, Van Den Veyver IB. Counseling challenges with variants of uncertain significance and incidental findings in prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis. J Clin Med. 2014;3:1018–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, Eichler EE, Cuckle H, Shaffer LG. Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genet Med. 2013;15:478–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Srebniak MI, Joosten M, Knapen MFCM, Arends LR, Polak M, van Veen S, et al. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosomal aberrations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:445–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fenwick A, Plantinga M, Dheensa S, Lucassen A. Predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions: negotiating requests with parents. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:244–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hashiloni-Dolev Y, Nov-Klaiman T, Raz A. Pandora’s pregnancy: NIPT, CMA, and genome sequencing-A new era for prenatal genetic testing. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39:859–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Schaper M, Schicktanz S. Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Marcon AR, Bieber M, Caulfield T. Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine. Genet Med. 2018;20:950–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ballard LM, Horton RH, Fenwick A, Lucassen AM. Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public’s views and implications for clinical practice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:155–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:16–26.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Beta J, Zhang W, Geris S, Kostiv V, Akolekar R. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54:452–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, Odibo A, Akolekar R. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54:442–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fiorentino F, Napoletano S, Caiazzo F, Sessa M, Bono S, Spizzichino L, et al. Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:725–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hay SB, Sahoo T, Travis MK, Hovanes K, Dzidic N, Doherty C, et al. ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: is karyotyping really sufficient? Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:184–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yu D, Zhang K, Han M, Pan W, Chen Y, Wang Y, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal subchromosomal copy number variations and chromosomal aneuploidy by low-pass whole-genome sequencing. Mol Genet Genom Med. 2019;7:e674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hayward J, Chitty LS. Beyond screening for chromosomal abnormalities: advances in non-invasive diagnosis of single gene disorders and fetal exome sequencing. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;23:94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Perlado S, Bustamante-Aragonés A, Donas M, Lorda-Sánchez I, Plaza J, Rodríguez, de Alba M. Fetal genotyping in maternal blood by digital PCR: towards NIPD of Monogenic disorders independently of parental origin. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0153258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Breveglieri G, D’Aversa E, Finotti A, Borgatti M. Non-invasive prenatal testing using fetal DNA. Mol Diagn Ther. 2019;23:291–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Minear MA, Alessi S, Allyse M, Michie M, Chandrasekharan S. Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing: current and emerging ethical, legal, and social issues. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet. 2015;16:369–98.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Seller MJ. Ethical aspects of genetic counselling. J Med Ethics. 1982;8:185–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med. 2011;13:499–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gornick MC, Ryan KA, Scherer AM, Roberts JS, De Vries RG, Uhlmann WR. Interpretations of the Term “Actionable” when discussing genetic test results: what you mean is not what i heard. J Genet Couns. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0289-6.

  41. 41.

    Keage HAD, Loetscher T. Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0207356.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mol A. The logic of care: health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Anneke Lucassen’s work is supported by funding from a Wellcome Trust collaborative award (208053/Z/17/Z).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anneke Lucassen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shkedi-Rafid, S., Horton, R. & Lucassen, A. What is the meaning of a ‘genomic result’ in the context of pregnancy?. Eur J Hum Genet (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00722-8

Download citation

Search