Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34544840›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical genetics2022

Clinical application of fetal genome-wide sequencing during pregnancy: position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists.

Joanna Lazier, Taila Hartley, Jo-Ann Brock, Oana Caluseriu, David Chitayat, Anne-Marie Laberge, Sylvie Langlois, Julie Lauzon, Tanya N Nelson, Jillian Parboosingh and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Joanna LazierDepartment of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada jlazier@cheo.on.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-2709-5049
Taila HartleyChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jo-Ann BrockDepartments of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Oana CaluseriuMedical Genetics Clinic, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
David ChitayatThe Prenatal Diagnosis and Medical Genetics Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anne-Marie LabergeService de Génétique Médicale, CHU Sainte-Justine and Département de Pédiatrie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Sylvie LangloisDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Julie LauzonDepartment of Medical Genetics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Tanya N NelsonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, BC Children's Hospital and BC Women's Hospital Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jillian ParboosinghDepartment of Medical Genetics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Dimitri J StavropoulosGenome Diagnostics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kym Boycott *Department of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christine M Armour *Department of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1767-1911
Canadian College of Medical Geneticists
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CAIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose and scopeThe aim of this position statement is to provide recommendations for Canadian healthcare professionals regarding the use of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) in the context of diagnostic testing of the fetus during pregnancy. This statement was developed to facilitate clinical translation of GWS as a prenatal diagnostic test and the development of best practices in Canada, but the applicability of this document is broader and aims to help professionals in other healthcare systems. METHODS OF STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT: A multidisciplinary group was assembled to review existing literature on fetal GWS for genetic diagnosis in the context of suspected monogenic diseases and to make recommendations relevant to the Canadian context. The statement was circulated for comments to the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) membership-at-large and, following incorporation of feedback, approved by the CCMG Board of Directors on 19 February 2021. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe use of prenatal GWS is indicated for the investigation of multiple fetal anomalies. Its use in the context of isolated fetal anomaly should be guided by available resources and current evidence, which is continually changing. During pregnancy, GWS should be ordered by, or in collaboration with, a medical geneticist. It should be used following detailed phenotyping to interrogate known disease genes, preferably using a trio approach, following detailed fetal phenotyping. Testing should be done with an overall aim to help in the management of the pregnancy, delivery and postnatal care. It should be guided by personal utility of the test for the pregnant person and clinical utility for pregnancy and birth management, as outlined herein. Genetic counselling is crucial in making the parental decision an informed decision. Chromosomal microarray analysis should be completed in parallel or prior to GWS and should be preceded by Quantitative Fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR) for detection of common aneuploidies. In normal circumstances, only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants with a high likelihood of being associated with the identified fetal anomalies should be reported. Reporting of secondary findings, defined as purposeful analysis of variants in a set of medically actionable genes, should not, by default, be performed in the prenatal context. Laboratories should only report incidental findings that reveal risk of a significant Mendelian condition during infancy and childhood. Should a laboratory have a policy for reporting incidental findings in medically actionable adult-onset conditions, they should only be reported with explicit opt-in consent signed by the tested individuals. Genetic counselling is crucial in disclosing the test results and the implications the results may have for the fetus. It should be emphasised that negative results do not rule out a genetic diagnosis nor guarantee a good prognosis. Postnatal phenotyping and reanalysis of existing data should be considered. Families should be given the opportunity to participate in research studies as appropriate. These recommendations will be routinely re-evaluated as knowledge of the diagnostic and clinical utility of fetal GWS during pregnancy improves.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingPrenatal DiagnosisAdultCanadaChildFemaleFetusHumansPregnancyPrenatal Careand neonatal diseases and abnormalitiescongenitalgenetic counsellinghereditaryinfectiouspregnancy complications

Identifiers

PMID34544840
PMCPMC9554053
OpenAlexW3201482803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.