Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40841822›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025

Prenatal Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS): to report or not to report?

Maayke A de Koning, Malgorzata I Srebniak, Esther J Oldekamp, Denise Hahn, Karin E M Diderich, Hennie T Bruggenwirth, Gijs W E Santen, Mariëtte J V Hoffer, Manon Suerink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Uncertainty, ethics, and progress in genomic medicine.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Article
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

9 authors.

Maayke A de KoningDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0557-7530
Malgorzata I SrebniakDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3429-6156
Esther J OldekampDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Denise HahnDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Karin E M DiderichDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2637-9998
Hennie T BruggenwirthDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4303-8896
Gijs W E SantenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1959-3267
Mariëtte J V HofferDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1812-7670
Manon SuerinkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. m.suerink@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7058-6973

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prenatal Exome Sequencing (pES) has a significant diagnostic yield but time pressure and limited phenotypic information make interpretation of Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS) more challenging than in a postnatal setting. We share our experiences of prenatal reporting of highly suspicious VUS. We retrospectively analyzed pregnancies in which VUS identified by pES were reported to parents during pregnancy in two Dutch academic medical hospitals. During the study period, 31 VUS in 28 genes were reported in 27 pregnancies. Cases were assigned to one of five groups based on consistency of prenatal phenotypes with gene-associated diagnoses. The implications of VUS included clinical evaluation of parental carriers (N = 4), additional screening of proband (N = 2), influencing parental decision-making (N = 11) and/or prompting confirmatory testing (N = 10). Reanalysis with currently available data resulted in reclassification of seven variants, five of which were upgraded to (likely) pathogenic. Although we do not recommend routine disclosure, our data suggest that prenatal reporting of VUS can be valuable in exceptional cases. Stringent selection was applied and only a minority of reported VUS was reclassified as (likely) pathogenic. Therefore, a careful individual assessment of each VUS case remains imperative and multidisciplinary meetings should be an integral part of prenatal VUS management.

Indexed as

Exome SequencingGenetic TestingGenetic VariationPrenatal DiagnosisAdultFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID40841822
PMCPMC12480083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.