Clinical Outcomes and Counseling Impact of Exome Sequencing in a Low-Risk Prenatal Cohort
Exome Sequencing and Prenatal Risk
Abstract views: 99
/ 
PDF downloads: 41
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17440455Keywords:
Exome sequencing, Chromosome Aberrations, Genetic Counseling, GenomicsAbstract
Background: Prenatal exome sequencing (pES) is recommended mainly for fetuses with major or multiple structural anomalies when conventional karyotyping and chromosomal microarray are non-diagnostic. Outside these indications, its clinical value is uncertain.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 10 fetuses tested with pES at our center (2016–2025) despite lacking guideline-based indications. Indications included advanced maternal age (n=1), sex-chromosome anomalies (n=5), parental gonadal mosaicism risk (n=2), and isolated soft ultrasonographic marker (n=2). All cases had karyotype and/or chromosomal microarray (CMA) before pES.
Results: One fetus carried a pathogenic SETD5 (NM_001080517.3) c.1541del, p.(Lys514Argfs*2) variant, along with 45,X/46,XY mosaicism and transient ascites/pleural effusion. The SETD5 variant was considered incidental in the prenatal context, though it influenced management and led to medical termination. A second fetus had a maternally inherited heterozygous NSD1 (NM_022455.4) c.2410C>T, p.(Pro804Ser) variant of uncertain significance supporting pregnancy continuation, but the pregnancy was terminated in an external center. One other fetus was lost to follow-up; all other live-born infants appeared normal on postnatal examination.
Conclusion: In this small “out-of-indication” series, pES was management-changing in one pregnancy and created uncertainty in another, which complicated the family’s decision-making process. The latter finding aligns with current recommendations discouraging pES in low-risk antenatal settings due to its limited yield. Nonetheless, in select situations involving unresolved diagnostic ambiguity, pES may still uncover variants with potential relevance to counseling and management.
References
Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175-2184. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1203382
Lai THT, Au LKS, Lau YTE, et al. Application of Prenatal Whole Exome Sequencing for Structural Congenital Anomalies-Experience from a Local Prenatal Diagnostic Laboratory. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(12):2521. Published 2022 Dec 13. doi:10.3390/healthcare10122521
Fu F, Li R, Yu Q, et al. Application of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies: clinical experience and lessons learned from a cohort of 1618 fetuses. Genome Med. 2022;14(1):123. Published 2022 Oct 28. doi:10.1186/s13073-022-01130-x
Miceikaite I, Fagerberg C, Brasch-Andersen C, et al. Comprehensive prenatal diagnostics: Exome versus genome sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2023;43(9):1132-1141. doi:10.1002/pd.6402
Vaknin N, Azoulay N, Tsur E, et al. High rate of abnormal findings in Prenatal Exome Trio in low risk pregnancies and apparently normal fetuses. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(6):725-735. doi:10.1002/pd.6077
Daum H, Harel T, Millo T, et al. Exome sequencing for structurally normal fetuses-yields and ethical issues. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023;31(2):164-168. doi:10.1038/s41431-022-01169-9
Levy M, Lifshitz S, Goldenberg-Fumanov M, et al. Exome sequencing in every pregnancy? Results of trio exome sequencing in structurally normal fetuses. Prenat Diagn. 2025;45(3):276-286. doi:10.1002/pd.6585
Mellis R, Oprych K, Scotchman E, Hill M, Chitty LS. Diagnostic yield of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(6):662-685. doi:10.1002/pd.6115
Chau MHK, Choolani M, Dong Z, Cao Y, Choy KW. Genome sequencing in the prenatal diagnosis of structural malformations in the fetus. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;97:102539. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102539
Van den Veyver IB, Chandler N, Wilkins-Haug LE, Wapner RJ, Chitty LS; ISPD Board of Directors. International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis Updated Position Statement on the use of genome-wide sequencing for prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(6):796-803. doi:10.1002/pd.6157
Wou K, DeBie I, Carroll J, Brock JA, Douglas Wilson R. Fetal Exome Sequencing on the Horizon. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(1):64-67. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2018.06.016
Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, 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(5):405-424. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.30
Chang HJ, Clark RD, Bachman H. The phenotype of 45,X/46,XY mosaicism: an analysis of 92 prenatally diagnosed cases. Am J Hum Genet. 1990;46(1):156-167.
Grozeva D, Carss K, Spasic-Boskovic O, et al. De novo loss-of-function mutations in SETD5, encoding a methyltransferase in a 3p25 microdeletion syndrome critical region, cause intellectual disability. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;94(4):618-624. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.03.006
Crippa M, Bestetti I, Maitz S, et al. SETD5 Gene Haploinsufficiency in Three Patients With Suspected KBG Syndrome. Front Neurol. 2020;11:631. Published 2020 Jul 24. doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00631
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Umut Altunoğlu, Ebru Çelik, Tuğba Saraç Sivrikoz, Atıl Yüksel, Hülya Kayserili
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The journal is licensed under a 