OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Prenatal diagnosis
Mar, 2025;45 (3): 273-275.

Navigating the Challenges of Exome Sequencing in Structurally Normal Fetuses.

Sylvie Langlois, Lyn S Chitty
Author Information
  1. Sylvie Langlois: Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. ORCID
  2. Lyn S Chitty: North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. ORCID
PMID: 40064633 DOI: 10.1002/pd.6766

Abstract

No abstract text available.

References

  1. S. Drury, H. Williams, N. Trump, et al., ���Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetuses With Sonographic Abnormalities,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 35, no. 10 (2015): 1010���1017, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4675.
  2. R. Mellis, K. Oprych, E. Scotchman, M. Hill, and L. S. Chitty, ���Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Structural Anomalies: A Systematic Review and Meta���Analysis,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42, no. 6 (2022): 662���685, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6115.
  3. R. Sukenik���Halevy, S. Perlman, N. Ruhrman���Shahar, et al., ���The Prevalence of Prenatal Sonographic Findings in Postnatal Diagnostic Exome Sequencing Performed for Neurocognitive Phenotypes: A Cohort Study,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42, no. 6 (2022): 717���724, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6095.
  4. M. Levy, S. Lifshitz, M. Goldenberg���Fumanov, et al., ���Exome Sequencing in Every Pregnancy? Results of Trio Exome Sequencing in Structurally Normal Fetuses,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 45, no. 3 (2025): 276���286, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6585.
  5. Z. Gao, X. Zhu, H. Ren, Y. Wang, C. Hua, and X. Kong. ���Prenatal Exome Sequencing for Morphologically Normal Fetus: Should We be Doing It?,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 45, no. 3 (2025): 287���293, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6624.
  6. N. Chandler, M. Holder���Espinasse, and F. Mone, ���The Challenges of Performing Exome Sequencing in Structurally Normal Fetuses,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 45, no. 3 (2025): 294���298, PMID: 39394633, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6687.
  7. D. J. Amor, L. S. Chitty, and I. B. Van den Veyver, ���Current Controversies in Prenatal Diagnosis 2: The 59 Genes ACMG Recommends Reporting as Secondary Findings When Sequencing Postnatally Should be Reported When Detected on Fetal (and Parental) Sequencing,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 40, no. 12 (2020): 1508���1514, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5670.
  8. D. Vears and D. J. Amor, ���A Framework for Reporting Secondary and Incidental Findings in Prenatal Sequencing: When and for Whom?,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42, no. 6 (2022): 697���704, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6097.
  9. E. Harding, J. Hammond, L. S. Chitty, M. Hill, and C. Lewis, ���Couples Experiences of Receiving Uncertain Results Following Prenatal Microarray or Exome Sequencing: A Mixed���Methods Systematic Review,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 40, no. 8 (2020): 1028���1039, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5729.
  10. H. McInnes���Dean, R. Mellis, M. Daniel, et al., ���Something That Helped the Whole Picture': Experiences of Parents Offered Rapid Prenatal Exome Sequencing in Routine Clinical Care in the English National Health Service,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 44, no. 4 (2024): 465���479, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6537.
  11. K. Wou, T. Weitz, C. McCormack, et al., ���Parental Perceptions of Pre���Natal Whole Exome Sequencing (PPPWES) Study,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 38, no. 11 (2018): 801���811, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5332.
  12. D. Brabbing���Goldstein, L. Bazak, N. Ruhrman���Shahar, et al., ���Potentially Missed Diagnoses in Prenatal Versus Postnatal Exome Sequencing in the Lack of Informative Phenotype: Lessons Learned From a Postnatal Cohort,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 44, no. 12 (2024): 1423���1434, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6659.
  13. L. Hui, E. Szepe, J. Halliday, and C. Lewis, ���Maternity Health Care Professionals' Views and Experiences of Fetal Genomic Uncertainty: A Review,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 40, no. 6 (2020): 652���660, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5673.
  14. C. Lewis, J. Hammond, J. E. Klapwijk, et al., ���Dealing With Uncertain Results From Chromosomal Microarray and Exome Sequencing in the Prenatal Setting: An International Cross���Sectional Study With Healthcare Professionals,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 4, no. 6 (2021): 720���732, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5932.
  15. N. J. Chandler, E. Scotchman, R. Mellis, V. Ramachandran, R. Roberts, and L. S. Chitty, ���Lessons Learnt From Prenatal Exome Sequencing,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42, no. 7 (2022): 831���844, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6165.
  16. R. Zemet and I. B. Van den Veyver, ���Impact of Prenatal Genomics on Clinical Genetics Practice,��� Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 97 (2024): 102545, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102545.
  17. M. Duyzend, M. Sud, A. M. D���Gama, T. Poorvu, J. Estroff, and M. H. Wojcik, ���Going Back in Time: Prenatal Presentations of Postnatal Genetic Diagnoses Made in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit,��� Prenatal Diagnosis (2024), Online ahead of print, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6710.
  18. M. H. Duyzend, P. Cacheiro, J. O. B. Jacobsen, et al., ���Improving Prenatal Diagnosis Through Standards and Aggregation,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 44, no. 4 (2024): 454���464, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6522.
  19. F. Dhombres, P. Morgan, B. P. Chaudhari, et al., ���PN Prenatal Phenotyping: A Community Effort to Enhance the Human Phenotype Ontology,��� American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics 190, no. 2 (2022): 231���242, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31989.
  20. L. S. Chitty and I. B. Van den Veyver, ���Facilitating Variant Curation Sharing for Fetal Precision Genomics: A New Venture for Prenatal Diagnosis,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42, no. 12 (2022): 1479���1480, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6252.
  21. J. L. Giordano and R. J. Wapner, ���The Fetal Sequencing Consortium: The Value of Multidisciplinary Dialog and Collaboration,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42, no. 7 (2022): 807���810, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6190.
  22. S. Richards, N. Aziz, S. Bale, 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,��� Genetics in Medicine 17 (2015): 405���424.
  23. E. R. Riggs, E. F. Andersen, A. M. Cherry, et al., ���Technical Standards for the Interpretation and Reporting of Constitutional Copy���Number Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen),��� Genetics in Medicine 22, no. 2 (2020): 245���257, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436���019���0686���8.
  24. M. Durkie, E. J. Cassidy, I. Berry, et al. ACGS Best practice Guidelines for Variant Classification in Rare Disease 2024. The Association for Clinical Genomic Science, Accessed February 18, 2025, http://www.acgs.uk.com/media/12533/uk���practice���guidelines���for���variant���classification���v12���2024.pdf.
Editorial

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0NavigatingChallengesExomeSequencingStructurallyNormalFetuses

Similar Articles

Cited By