ArticleGenes2025
Prenatal Exome Sequencing: When Does Diagnostic Yield Meet Clinical Utility?
Article in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPrenatal Exome Sequencing (pES) has revolutionized prenatal diagnosis in fetuses with congenital anomalies. Although its performance is very promising, previous pES studies have mainly focused on diagnostic yield, often without considering the actual impact on ongoing pregnancies. In this study, we aim to (1) assess whether a prenatal molecular diagnosis can reliably predict the clinical features of the unborn child and (2) determine the gestational age (gw) at which ultrasound (US) findings are sufficient to support the pathogenicity of genetic variants detected by pES.
methodsWe retrospectively selected 47 cases complicated by US anomalies that underwent Exome Sequencing (ES) and for which complete clinical assessment was available. A blinded reanalysis of ES data was performed, considering only prenatal features.
resultsIn our cohort, standard ES led to a molecular diagnosis in 43% of cases. The blinded reanalysis revealed that a complete or partial retrospective prenatal diagnosis was achievable in 95% of diagnosed cases. The mean gestational week at which US data would have supported molecular diagnosis was 22 + 5 weeks. The clinical follow-up confirmed a syndromic presentation in 21 out of 23 newborns and in all terminated pregnancies.
conclusionsOur study further confirms that pES is a valuable diagnostic tool for detecting genetic etiology in fetuses with congenital malformations. In most cases, pES results accurately predict the postnatal phenotype. However, the prenatal setting requires specific adjustments and precautions, and a negative pES result cannot be considered reassuring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.