OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to determine the association of copy number variants (CNV) with perinatal outcomes among fetuses with sonographic abnormalities. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of anomalous fetuses evaluated at a single fetal center, who underwent chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing. Pathogenic CNV or variants of uncertain significance were classified as abnormal. The primary outcome of perinatal death was compared among fetuses with normal vs abnormal CMA. Secondary outcomes included preterm birth, small for gestational age birth weight, and death prior to discharge. The odds ratio (OR) of perinatal death was determined, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS:Of 280 fetuses, 60 (21.4%) had abnormal CMA results-21 (35.0%) were classified as pathogenic, 39 (65.0%) were variants of uncertain significance. Among 212 (75.7%) continuing pregnancies, abnormal CMA was not associated with increased odds of perinatal death (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.34-1.93), after adjustment for the presence of hydrops and specific anomalies. The overall frequency of perinatal death was 21.2%. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS:Abnormal CMA was not associated with increased odds of perinatal death in this cohort. Fetal CNV are common among fetal center patients; such fetuses are at high risk of perinatal death irrespective of CMA results.

Purpose

Exome sequencing (ES) has the potential to improve management of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses, infants, and children. US payers are key stakeholders in patient access to ES. We examined how payers view insurance coverage and clinical utility of pediatric and prenatal ES.

Methods

We employed the framework approach of qualitative research to conduct this study. The study cohort represented 14 payers collectively covering 170,000,000 enrollees.

Results

Seventy-one percent of payers covered pediatric ES despite perceived insufficient evidence because they saw merit in available interventions or in ending the diagnostic odyssey. None covered prenatal ES, because they saw no merit. For pediatric ES, 50% agreed with expanded aspects of clinical utility (e.g., information utility), and 21% considered them sufficient for coverage. For prenatal ES, payers saw little utility until in utero interventions become available.

Conclusion

The perceived merit of ES is becoming a factor in payers' coverage for serious diseases with available interventions, even when evidence is perceived insufficient. Payers' views on ES's clinical utility are expanding to include informational utility, aligning with the views of patients and other stakeholders. Our findings inform clinical research, patient advocacy, and policy-making, allowing them to be more relevant to payers.

Objective  Historically, fetal autopsy was common after terminations for anomalies. Previous studies report that fetal autopsy confirms ultrasound findings in the majority of cases. This study aims to examine correlation between prenatal and autopsy diagnoses at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and evaluate whether autopsy adds diagnostic information, specifically information that changes risk of recurrence for future pregnancies. Study Design  We conducted a retrospective chart review of all fetal autopsies performed at UCSF between 1994 and 2009. Prenatal diagnosis was compared with autopsy diagnosis; for cases where there was a change in diagnosis, an MFM (maternal-fetal medicine specialist) reviewed the case to assign risk of recurrence before and after autopsy. Results  Overall, there was concordance between prenatal diagnosis and autopsy diagnosis in greater than 91.7% of cases. Autopsy added information that resulted in a change in recurrence risk in 2.3% of cases ( n  = 9). Conclusion  For the vast majority of cases, there is agreement between prenatal and autopsy diagnosis after pregnancy loss or termination for fetal anomalies. Only a small percentage of autopsies change recurrence risk. This may be useful when counseling women about method of termination and when counseling couples about whether to have an autopsy.

Background

Accurate gestational dating is a critical component of obstetric and newborn care. In the absence of early ultrasound, many clinicians rely on less accurate measures, such as last menstrual period or symphysis-fundal height during pregnancy, or Dubowitz scoring or the Ballard (or New Ballard) method at birth. These measures often underestimate or overestimate gestational age and can lead to misclassification of babies as born preterm, which has both short- and long-term clinical care and public health implications.

Objective

We sought to evaluate whether metabolic markers in newborns measured as part of routine screening for treatable inborn errors of metabolism can be used to develop a population-level metabolic gestational dating algorithm that is robust despite intrauterine growth restriction and can be used when fetal ultrasound dating is not available. We focused specifically on the ability of these markers to differentiate preterm births (PTBs) (<37 weeks) from term births and to assign a specific gestational age in the PTB group.

Study design

We evaluated a cohort of 729,503 singleton newborns with a California birth in 2005 through 2011 who had routine newborn metabolic screening and fetal ultrasound dating at 11-20 weeks' gestation. Using training and testing subsets (divided in a ratio of 3:1) we evaluated the association among PTB, target newborn characteristics, acylcarnitines, amino acids, thyroid-stimulating hormone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone, and galactose-1-phosphate-uridyl-transferase. We used multivariate backward stepwise regression to test for associations and linear discriminate analyses to create a linear function for PTB and to assign a specific week of gestation. We used sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value to evaluate the performance of linear functions.

Results

Along with birthweight and infant age at test, we included 35 of the 51 metabolic markers measured in the final multivariate model comparing PTBs and term births. Using a linear discriminate analyses-derived linear function, we were able to sort PTBs and term births accurately with sensitivities and specificities of ≥95% in both the training and testing subsets. Assignment of a specific week of gestation in those identified as PTBs resulted in the correct assignment of week ±2 weeks in 89.8% of all newborns in the training and 91.7% of those in the testing subset. When PTB rates were modeled using the metabolic dating algorithm compared to fetal ultrasound, PTB rates were 7.15% vs 6.11% in the training subset and 7.31% vs 6.25% in the testing subset.

Conclusion

When considered in combination with birthweight and hours of age at test, metabolic profile evaluated within 8 days of birth appears to be a useful measure of PTB and, among those born preterm, of specific week of gestation ±2 weeks. Dating by metabolic profile may be useful in instances where there is no fetal ultrasound due to lack of availability or late entry into care.

The recent release of new, non-invasive prenatal tests for fetal aneuploidy using cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) has been hailed as a revolution in prenatal testing and has triggered significant commercial interest in the field. Ongoing research portends the arrival of a wide range of cffDNA tests. However, it is not yet clear how these tests will be integrated into well-established prenatal testing strategies in the USA, as the timing of such testing and the degree to which new non-invasive tests will supplement or replace existing screening and diagnostic tools remain uncertain. We argue that there is an urgent need for policy-makers, regulators and professional societies to provide guidance on the most efficient and ethical manner for such tests to be introduced into clinical practice in the USA.

A wide spectrum of genetic causes may lead to nonimmune hydrops fetalis (NIHF), and a thorough phenotypic and genetic evaluation are essential to determine the underlying etiology, optimally manage these pregnancies, and inform discussions about anticipated prognosis. In this review, we outline the known genetic etiologies of NIHF by fetal organ system affected, and provide a systematic approach to the evaluation of NIHF. Some of the underlying genetic disorders are associated with characteristic phenotypic features that may be seen on prenatal ultrasound, such as hepatomegaly with lysosomal storage disorders, hyperechoic kidneys with congenital nephrosis, or pulmonary valve stenosis with RASopathies. However, this is not always the case, and the approach to evaluation must include prenatal ultrasound findings as well as genetic testing and many other factors. Genetic testing that has been utilized for NIHF ranges from standard chromosomal microarray or karyotype to gene panels and broad approaches such as whole exome sequencing. Family and obstetric history, as well as pathology examination, can yield additional clues that are helpful in establishing a diagnosis. A systematic approach to evaluation can guide a more targeted approach to genetic evaluation, diagnosis, and management of NIHF.

Purpose

Exome sequencing (ES) has the potential to improve management of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses, infants, and children. US payers are key stakeholders in patient access to ES. We examined how payers view insurance coverage and clinical utility of pediatric and prenatal ES.

Methods

We employed the framework approach of qualitative research to conduct this study. The study cohort represented 14 payers collectively covering 170,000,000 enrollees.

Results

Seventy-one percent of payers covered pediatric ES despite perceived insufficient evidence because they saw merit in available interventions or in ending the diagnostic odyssey. None covered prenatal ES, because they saw no merit. For pediatric ES, 50% agreed with expanded aspects of clinical utility (e.g., information utility), and 21% considered them sufficient for coverage. For prenatal ES, payers saw little utility until in utero interventions become available.

Conclusion

The perceived merit of ES is becoming a factor in payers' coverage for serious diseases with available interventions, even when evidence is perceived insufficient. Payers' views on ES's clinical utility are expanding to include informational utility, aligning with the views of patients and other stakeholders. Our findings inform clinical research, patient advocacy, and policy-making, allowing them to be more relevant to payers.

Background

Next-generation sequencing is increasingly used in prenatal diagnosis. Targeted gene panels and exome sequencing are both available, but the comparative diagnostic yields of these approaches are not known.

Objective

We compared the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing with the simulated application of commercial targeted gene panels in a large cohort of fetuses with nonimmune hydrops fetalis.

Study design

This was a secondary analysis of a cohort study of exome sequencing for nonimmune hydrops fetalis, in which recruitment, exome sequencing, and phenotype-driven variant analysis were completed in 127 pregnancies with features of nonimmune hydrops fetalis. An Internet search was performed to identify commercial laboratories that offer targeted gene panels for the prenatal evaluation of nonimmune hydrops fetalis or for specific disorders associated with nonimmune hydrops fetalis using the terms "non-immune hydrops fetalis," "fetal non-immune hydrops," "hydrops," "cystic hygroma," "lysosomal storage disease," "metabolic disorder," "inborn error of metabolism," "RASopathy," and "Noonan." Our primary outcome was the proportion of all genetic variants identified through exome sequencing that would have been identified if a targeted gene panel had instead been used. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of genetic variants that would have been identified by type of targeted gene panel (general nonimmune hydrops fetalis, RASopathy, or metabolic) and the percent of variants of uncertain significance that would have been identified on the panels, assuming 100% analytical sensitivity and specificity of panels for variants in the included genes.

Results

Exome sequencing identified a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 37 of 127 cases (29%) in a total of 29 genes. A variant of uncertain significance, strongly suspected to be associated with the phenotype, was identified in another 12 cases (9%). We identified 7 laboratories that offer 10 relevant targeted gene panels; 6 are described as RASopathy panels, 3 as nonimmune hydrops fetalis panels, and 1 as a metabolic panel. The median number of genes included on each of these panels is 22, ranging from 11 to 148. Had a nonimmune hydrops fetalis targeted gene panel been used instead of exome sequencing, 13 to 15 of the 29 genes (45%-52%) identified in our nonimmune hydrops fetalis cohort would have been sequenced, and 19 to 24 of the pathogenic variants (51%-62%) would have been detected. The yield was predicted to be the lowest with the metabolic panel (11%) and the highest with the largest nonimmune hydrops fetalis panel (62%). The largest nonimmune hydrops fetalis targeted gene panel would have had a diagnostic yield of 18% compared with 29% with exome sequencing. The exome sequencing platform used provided 30× or more coverage for all of the exons on the commercial targeted gene panels, supporting our assumption of 100% analytical sensitivity for exome sequencing.

Conclusion

The broader coverage of exome sequencing for genetically heterogeneous disorders, such as nonimmune hydrops fetalis, made it a superior alternative to targeted gene panel testing.

Objective

To investigate women's understanding of prenatal testing options and of their own experience with screening, diagnostic genetic testing, or both.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of enhanced information and values clarification regarding prenatal genetic testing in the absence of financial barriers to testing. Women in the third trimester of pregnancy were asked whether they had discussed prenatal genetic testing with their health care providers, whether they understood this testing was optional, and whether they had undergone testing during their pregnancy. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to determine independent predictors of these outcomes.

Results

Data were available from 710 study participants. Discussions about screening tests were reported by 654 participants (92%); only 412 (58%) reported discussing diagnostic testing. That screening and diagnostic testing were optional was evident to approximately two thirds of women (n=470 and 455, respectively). Recall of actual tests undergone was correct for 626 (88%) for screening and for 700 (99%) for diagnostic testing. Racial, ethnic and socioeconomic variation existed in the understanding of whether screening and diagnostic tests were optional and in the correct recall of whether screening had been undertaken in the current pregnancy. In the usual care group, women receiving care in low-income settings were less likely to recall being offered diagnostic testing (adjusted odds ratio 0.23 [0.14-0.39]).

Conclusion

Disparities exist in women's recall of prenatal genetic testing discussions and their understanding of their own experience. Interventions that explain testing options to women and help clarify their preferences may help to eliminate these differences.