Arrays/NGS/NIPD Flashcards
What are the advantages of prenatal arrays
No culturing: increase TaT, no culturing artefacts.
Higher detection rates
What are the disadvantages to prenatal arrays
Poor DNA quality/quantity. Miss balanced rearr and triploidy. Lower mosaic diet pectin rate to karyotype. Culturing is still required (DNA extraction, FISH, K follow up). Difficult interpretation. Cost of aCGH (and possible FISH). VOUS detected. Counselling issues. Coverage vs optimum resolution.
What measures can be put into place in terms of platform used to help with the processing, analysis, interpretation.
Use same platform as postnatal array.
Allows: analysts to have experience, interpretation is easier as have in house dataset for the platform with clinical features, and local common benign CNVs.
What did Huang and Crolla 2010 say about increasing platform resolution
There’s growing evidence that the use of a higher density arrays leads to no increase in diagnostic utility but does lead to an increase in discovery of benign and uncertain CNVs.
What to consider in a prenatal setting when array shows an inherited cnv
If the parent has a normal phenotype consider: autosomal recessive condition in the region: other parent could be a carrier. Is the region imprinted. Does the region have a risk factor to disease- incomplete penetrance.
What’s recommendations where published about prenatal arrays
RCPath recommendations for the use of chromosomal micro arrays in pregnancy June 2014
What the RCPath criteria for using aCGH
One or more structural abnormality off scan.
Isolated NT of over 3.5mm with a crown rump length of 45-84mm.
Fetus with a sex chromosome abnormality that doesn’t explain the ultrasound.
What’s the RCPath reporting rule for CNVs
Use 1-5 classification system
Report any variant that’ll potentially inform management of pregnancy/family now or in the future, regardless of size.
What are the 3 examples of types of CNVs that the RCPath say SHOULD be reported
High penetrance neuro-susceptibility loci associated with a risk of severe phenotype (discussion about overall likely phenotype of the child).
Neuro-susceptibility locus associated with an increased incidence of anomalies detectable on scan (can direct further scanning).
Unsolicited pathogenic findings fulfilling the above criteria (deletion of known cancer predisposition gene-BRCA1. Deletion of DMD in a female fetus)
What incidental findings ARE NOT reported by RCPath
Any finding:
Not linked to the potential phenotype for the pregnancy in question.
No clinically actionable consequence for the ciphers/family in the future.
VOUS that can’t be linked to phenotype based on genes involved.
Low penetrance neuro-susceptibility loci.
Unsolicited pathogenic variants where there’s no available intervention.
What type of variants would be taken to the expert advisory group for prenatal CNVs
1) VOUS not on the reporting list.
2) Dups of known genes with poorly delineated phenotypes.
3) Del/dup of non-OMIM morbid genes.
4) Del/dup of AR genes tenuously linked to phenotype.
5) X-linked or recessive carrier status
Who should be at the expert advisory groups for prenatal CNVs
2 clinical scientists and 2 clinical geneticists. Max TaT 2-3 days for a decision.
Written report to be provided/ reviewer to explain their decision. Collated/ recovered by date- to refer to in future cases.
Where possible feedback of pregnancy outcome given to the lab for inclusion in the review panel database .
Which neuro-susceptibility loci SHOULD be reported
1) distal 1q21.1 deletion/duplication.
2) 15q13.3 deletion.
3) distal 16p11.2 deletion.
4) proximal 16p11.2 deletion.
5) 17q12 deletion.
Which neuro-susceptibility loci SHOULD NOT be reported
1) 15q11.2 BP1-2 deletion /duplication.
2) 16p13.11 deletion/duplication.
3) proximal 1q21.1 duplication.
4) 16p12.2 deletion.
5) Xp22.31 (STS) duplication.
6) Xp22.33 (SHOX) deletion.
Which neuro-susceptibility loci SHOULD BE CONSIDERED for reported
1) 22q11.2 duplication.
2) proximal 1q21.1 deletion.
3) 17q12 duplication.