Objective To determine the incremental yield of exome sequencing (ES) over chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) or karyotyping in prenatally diagnosed non‐immune hydrops fetalis (NIHF). Methods A prospective cohort study (comprising an extended group of the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study) was performed which included 28 cases of prenatally diagnosed NIHF undergoing trio ES following negative CMA or karyotyping. These cases were combined with data from a systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and http://ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched electronically (January 2000 to October 2020) for studies reporting on the incremental yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping in fetuses with prenatally detected NIHF. Inclusion criteria for the systematic review were: (i) at least two cases of NIHF undergoing sequencing; (ii) testing initiated based on prenatal ultrasound‐based phenotype; and (iii) negative CMA or karyotyping result. The incremental diagnostic yield of ES was assessed in: (i) all cases of NIHF; (ii) isolated NIHF; (iii) NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly; and (iv) NIHF according to severity (i.e. two vs three or more cavities affected). Results In the extended PAGE study cohort, the additional diagnostic yield of ES over CMA or karyotyping was 25.0% (7/28) in all NIHF cases, 21.4% (3/14) in those with isolated NIHF and 28.6% (4/14) in those with non‐isolated NIHF. In the meta‐analysis, the pooled incremental yield based on 21 studies (306 cases) was 29% (95% CI, 24–34%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) in all NIHF, 21% (95% CI, 13–30%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) in isolated NIHF and 39% (95% CI, 30–49%; P < 0.00001; I2 = 1%) in NIHF associated with an additional fetal structural anomaly. In the latter group, congenital limb contractures were the most prevalent additional structural anomaly associated with a causative pathogenic variant, occurring in 17.3% (19/110) of cases. The incremental yield did not differ significantly according to hydrops severity. The most common genetic disorders identified were RASopathies, occurring in 30.3% (27/89) of cases with a causative pathogenic variant, most frequently due to a PTPN11 variant (44.4%; 12/27). The predominant inheritance pattern in causative pathogenic variants was autosomal dominant in monoallelic disease genes (57.3%; 51/89), with most being de novo (86.3%; 44/51). Conclusions Use of prenatal next‐generation sequencing in both isolated and non‐isolated NIHF should be considered in the development of clinical pathways. Given the wide range of potential syndromic diagnoses and heterogeneity in the prenatal phenotype of NIHF, exome or whole‐genome sequencing may prove to be a more appropriate testing approach than a targeted gene panel testing strategy. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Objective To evaluate the utility of prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for isolated increased nuchal translucency (NT) and to investigate factors that increase diagnostic yield. Design Retrospective analysis of data from two prospective cohort studies. Setting Fetal medicine centres in the UK and USA. Population Fetuses with increased NT ≥3.5 mm at 11–14 weeks of gestation recruited to the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) and Columbia fetal whole exome sequencing studies (n = 213). Methods We grouped cases based on (1) the presence of additional structural abnormalities at presentation in the first trimester or later in pregnancy, and (2) NT measurement at presentation. We compared diagnostic rates between groups using Fisher exact test. Main outcome measures Detection of diagnostic genetic variants considered to have caused the observed fetal structural anomaly. Results Diagnostic variants were detected in 12 (22.2%) of 54 fetuses presenting with non‐isolated increased NT, 12 (32.4%) of 37 fetuses with isolated increased NT in the first trimester and additional abnormalities later in pregnancy, and 2 (1.8%) of 111 fetuses with isolated increased NT in the first trimester and no other abnormalities on subsequent scans. Diagnostic rate also increased with increasing size of NT. Conclusions The diagnostic yield of prenatal ES is low for fetuses with isolated increased NT but significantly higher where there are additional structural anomalies. Prenatal ES may not be appropriate for truly isolated increased NT but timely, careful ultrasound scanning to identify other anomalies emerging later can direct testing to focus where there is a higher likelihood of diagnosis.

Structural differences (congenital anomalies) in the makeup of the baby's heart, brain and other organs are found on antenatal ultrasound scans in up to 3% of pregnancies. These often have a genetic cause, arising because of changes in the chromosomes (which store our genetic material) or the DNA code that make up the genes. The more differences a baby has the more likely the risk of underlying genetic disease. If a structural difference is found, parents are usually offered a genetic test, which may be carried out on cells taken either from the placenta (chorionic villous sampling) or the fluid surrounding the baby (amniocentesis). At the moment, these cells are only tested for changes in the chromosomes and are only able to reveal the underlying cause in about 40% of unborn babies.Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) is a new genetic test, which, when combined with testing the DNA of both parents can find changes in the baby's genetic code. If a DNA change is found that can explain the structural changes seen on ultrasound, specific information about the underlying diagnosis can be given to the parents. Having this information can help parents make important decisions about their ongoing pregnancy, as well as help doctors to care for the mother and baby. Finding a genetic change can also help to understand how the condition has arisen and whether it might happen again in another pregnancy. It may also be possible to test for the genetic condition in future pregnancies.Although prenatal ES is an exciting new way to improve diagnosis rates for structural differences, it has some challenges. While the test is very detailed, it may not always find a genetic explanation and sometimes the results are difficult to interpret. For example, genetic changes can be found where their significance for the pregnancy is unclear.More recently, two studies have now shown that prenatal ES can find a genetic diagnosis in at least 10% of pregnancies with structural differences where standard chromosome testing has been negative. This paper reviews these studies, along with earlier evidence on ES and provides clinicians with guidance for future practice.

No abstract