Matthew A Shear, Arun P Wiita, Jingwei Yu, Brette Wayman, Teresa N Sparks, Mary E Norton, Kate Swanson
{"title":"在北美的细胞遗传学实验室中,产前鉴定的不确定意义变异的报告标准不同。","authors":"Matthew A Shear, Arun P Wiita, Jingwei Yu, Brette Wayman, Teresa N Sparks, Mary E Norton, Kate Swanson","doi":"10.1002/pd.6785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Current technical standards for chromosomal microarray (CMA) interpretation are not prescriptive for reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) identified prenatally. We sought to compare prenatal CMA reporting among cytogenetic labs and identify potential drivers of practice variation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an electronic cross-sectional survey of cytogeneticists in the United States and Canada from July-December 2023. Participants were identified through the American Cytogenetics Forum List.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Labs reported differences in their size threshold used when reporting CNVs lacking OMIM annotated genes as a VUS, variable use of clinical data such as ultrasound or family history when deciding to report a VUS, and differences in opinion regarding the underlying pathogenicity of certain CNVs. Many cytogeneticists reported concerns about legal liability related to prenatal CMA reporting, and many shared concerns that a patient may terminate a pregnancy based on a VUS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reporting criteria for prenatally identified variants of uncertain significance differs among cytogenetic laboratories in North America. Many possible drivers of this practice variation were identified, including a lack of national guidelines that comprehensively address the unique considerations for prenatal CMA reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":20387,"journal":{"name":"Prenatal Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"1359-1365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting Criteria for Prenatally Identified Variants of Uncertain Significance Differs Among Cytogenetics Laboratories in North America.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew A Shear, Arun P Wiita, Jingwei Yu, Brette Wayman, Teresa N Sparks, Mary E Norton, Kate Swanson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pd.6785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Current technical standards for chromosomal microarray (CMA) interpretation are not prescriptive for reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) identified prenatally. We sought to compare prenatal CMA reporting among cytogenetic labs and identify potential drivers of practice variation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an electronic cross-sectional survey of cytogeneticists in the United States and Canada from July-December 2023. Participants were identified through the American Cytogenetics Forum List.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Labs reported differences in their size threshold used when reporting CNVs lacking OMIM annotated genes as a VUS, variable use of clinical data such as ultrasound or family history when deciding to report a VUS, and differences in opinion regarding the underlying pathogenicity of certain CNVs. Many cytogeneticists reported concerns about legal liability related to prenatal CMA reporting, and many shared concerns that a patient may terminate a pregnancy based on a VUS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reporting criteria for prenatally identified variants of uncertain significance differs among cytogenetic laboratories in North America. Many possible drivers of this practice variation were identified, including a lack of national guidelines that comprehensively address the unique considerations for prenatal CMA reporting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prenatal Diagnosis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1359-1365\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prenatal Diagnosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6785\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prenatal Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6785","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting Criteria for Prenatally Identified Variants of Uncertain Significance Differs Among Cytogenetics Laboratories in North America.
Objective: Current technical standards for chromosomal microarray (CMA) interpretation are not prescriptive for reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) identified prenatally. We sought to compare prenatal CMA reporting among cytogenetic labs and identify potential drivers of practice variation.
Methods: We conducted an electronic cross-sectional survey of cytogeneticists in the United States and Canada from July-December 2023. Participants were identified through the American Cytogenetics Forum List.
Results: Labs reported differences in their size threshold used when reporting CNVs lacking OMIM annotated genes as a VUS, variable use of clinical data such as ultrasound or family history when deciding to report a VUS, and differences in opinion regarding the underlying pathogenicity of certain CNVs. Many cytogeneticists reported concerns about legal liability related to prenatal CMA reporting, and many shared concerns that a patient may terminate a pregnancy based on a VUS.
Conclusion: Reporting criteria for prenatally identified variants of uncertain significance differs among cytogenetic laboratories in North America. Many possible drivers of this practice variation were identified, including a lack of national guidelines that comprehensively address the unique considerations for prenatal CMA reporting.
期刊介绍:
Prenatal Diagnosis welcomes submissions in all aspects of prenatal diagnosis with a particular focus on areas in which molecular biology and genetics interface with prenatal care and therapy, encompassing: all aspects of fetal imaging, including sonography and magnetic resonance imaging; prenatal cytogenetics, including molecular studies and array CGH; prenatal screening studies; fetal cells and cell-free nucleic acids in maternal blood and other fluids; preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD); prenatal diagnosis of single gene disorders, including metabolic disorders; fetal therapy; fetal and placental development and pathology; development and evaluation of laboratory services for prenatal diagnosis; psychosocial, legal, ethical and economic aspects of prenatal diagnosis; prenatal genetic counseling