CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03482141PWESUpdated Apr 14, 2023Results posted

Clinical Utility of Prenatal Whole Exome Sequencing

An interventional study of Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) in Structural Anomalies, Cardiac Anomalies and Central Nervous System Anomalies, sponsored by University of California, San Francisco. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 64 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-04-14.

Sponsored by University of California, San Francisco · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
316
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years to 64 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The investigator aims to examine the clinical utility of WES, including assessment of a variety of health-related and reproductive outcomes in undiagnosed prenatal cases.

Read the detailed description

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is changing the paradigm of clinical genetic testing. Unlike highly focused single-gene tests, NGS allows one to examine gene panels, the exome, and the whole genome. With the broad array of molecular tests now available, ordering physicians face the conundrum of selecting the best diagnostic tool for patients with suspected genetic conditions. Single-gene testing is often most appropriate for conditions with distinctive clinical features and minimal locus heterogeneity. NGS-based gene panel testing, which can be complemented with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and other ancillary methods, provides a comprehensive and feasible approach for well documented but genetically heterogeneous disorders. Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have the advantage of enabling parallel interrogation of most of the genes in the human genome. To some, WES is preferable to previously used methods due to higher diagnostic yield, shorter time to diagnosis, and improved cost-efficiency.

The ability to survey the exome opens up both new opportunities and new challenges. For example, all coding regions of known genes must be analyzed when applying WES to undiagnosed cases with unclear inheritance patterns. Current limitations on variant interpretation capabilities and clinical validity raise questions about the clinical utility of WES as either a stand-alone or a first-choice diagnostic test. Additional challenges include pre- and post-test counseling with appropriate and robust informed consent, bioinformatics analysis setup and validation, variant interpretation and classification, the need for policies and protocols concerning the discovery and reporting of secondary findings unrelated to the presenting indication, a requirement for validation of WES results, assurance of conformation to quality control standards, data storage and accessibility, and reimbursement issues.

Current clinical standards recommend offering chromosomal microarray (CMA) in the prenatal setting when fetal structural anomalies are detected via prenatal ultrasound. In these cases, clinically relevant copy number variants have been reported in 6.0-9.1% of fetuses with a normal karyotype. However, informed consent processes for prenatal CMA are challenging-particularly in cases with ultrasound anomalies, as parents are absorbing challenging news and under considerable stress. Women have reported being "blindsided" by positive CMA results, or feeling that these results were "toxic information"-information they wished they did not have, particularly in cases of uncertain genetic information or uninterpretable variants. Nonetheless, in that same study women who were referred for CMA because of ultrasound anomalies reported less frequent negative reactions, since they already anticipated abnormal results.

Introducing WES into prenatal clinical care of underrepresented populations raises additional issues and considerations of payment coverage, access, and standards of care. Beyond the sheer complexity of the test and its results, clinicians and health systems must address numerous considerations, including: private and public insurance coverage; language and culture differences and their implications for genetic counseling and clinician-patient relationships; ability to access follow-up testing and clinical care; ability to access appropriate treatment and services; and particularly in the prenatal setting, local, state, and national abortion laws and decision-making about pregnancy termination. These issues and others will affect not only patients' decision-making regarding WES, but also their post-test needs for patient follow up, counseling and support. The importance of systematically assessing the clinical utility of NGS is critical for determining in which clinical and health care contexts WES will be useful and for commencing research on these considerations.

The investigator aims to examine the clinical utility of WES, including assessment of a variety of health-related and reproductive outcomes in undiagnosed prenatal cases.

02

Conditions studied

  • Structural Anomalies
  • Cardiac Anomalies
  • Central Nervous System Anomalies
  • Thorax Anomalies
  • Genito-urinary Anomalies
  • Gastrointestinal Anomalies
  • Skeletal Anomalies
  • Multiple Anomalies
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 64 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Women carrying a pregnancy with an ultrasound diagnosis of a major structural anomaly (or multiple anomalies) in a major organ system (cardiac, central nervous system, thorax, genito-urinary, gastrointestinal/ventral wall, skeletal and or multiple anomalies )
  • Clinical concern for a potential underlying genetic condition
  • Completed or plan to complete chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis with chromosome analysis or microarray
  • Available maternal sample

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Prior WES performed for a clinical or research indication
  • Lack of phenotypic indication of a likely underlying genetic etiology
  • Mother unwilling or unable to provide a specimen
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
316 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Other
    Whole Exome Sequencing

    Whole exome sequencing (WES) will take place for prenatal patients (pregnancies with fetal structural defects). All patients will get exome sequencing and will follow the same procedures.

    Device: Whole Exome Sequencing (WES)

Interventions

  • DeviceWhole Exome Sequencing (WES)

    The Investigators will enroll pregnant women with fetal anomalies detected by ultrasound. Patients will be approached by a maternal-fetal specialist, who has counseled the patient regarding the fetal anomaly that has been detected. Written informed consent will be obtained by the study prenatal genetic counselor. Many patients will have undergone prenatal diagnostic testing in an outside laboratory; in such cases, cells or extracted DNA from the original fetal sample will be used for the purpose of this study. The consent process for prenatal WES will include pre-test counseling and the option of choosing whether or not to receive uncertain results and secondary findings. After conducting whole exome sequencing, the findings will be shared with the parent(s). Routine medical care will be provided to patients. The research will study the effectiveness of sequencing as a tool for providing genetic information to parents when a prenatal study reveals a fetus with a structural anomaly.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic Yield of Prenatal Exome in Patients With Fetal Structural Anomalies

    Number of prenatal patients (pregnancies with a structural anomaly) who got a positive exome result among those who had the exome test. Positive exome result is defined as identification of definitive or probable positive variants which explain prenatal phenotype.

    Time frame: Follow-up was done 6 months after return of exome results.

06

Results

Posted Apr 14, 2023

Participant flow

We recruited prenatal patients to this study and completed exome sequencing with 316 cases.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneWhole Exome Sequencing
Started316
Completed316
Not completed0

Outcome measures

PrimaryDiagnostic Yield of Prenatal Exome in Patients With Fetal Structural Anomalies

Number of prenatal patients (pregnancies with a structural anomaly) who got a positive exome result among those who had the exome test. Positive exome result is defined as identification of definitive or probable positive variants which explain prenatal phenotype.

Time frame:
Follow-up was done 6 months after return of exome results.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Diagnostic Yield of Prenatal Exome in Patients With Fetal Structural Anomalies
ParticipantsWhole Exome Sequencing (WES)
Diagnostic Yield of Prenatal Exome in Patients With Fetal Structural Anomalies60

Adverse events

Collected over Data was collected from participants up to 6 months after receiving the results of exome sequencing.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Pregnant Individuals With Fetal Structural Anomalies Were Enrolled, and Followed the Same Procedures0/316 (0%)0/316 (0%)0/316 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Pregnant Individuals With Fetal Structural Anomalies Were Enrolled, and Followed the Same Procedures
<=18 years0
Between 18 and 65 years316
>=65 years0
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Pregnant Individuals With Fetal Structural Anomalies Were Enrolled, and Followed the Same Procedures
Female316
Male0
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)Pregnant Individuals With Fetal Structural Anomalies Were Enrolled, and Followed the Same Procedures
American Indian, Native American, Alaska Native0
Asian49
Black/African American3
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander0
White/European American115
Middle Eastern or North African/Mediterranean5
Hispanic/Latino(a)49
More than one race/ethnicity25
Unknown/none of the above76
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Pregnant Individuals With Fetal Structural Anomalies Were Enrolled, and Followed the Same Procedures
United States316
Number of prenatal patients who consented for a diagnostic exome
Number of prenatal patients who consented for a diagnostic exome(Participants)Pregnant Individuals With Fetal Structural Anomalies Were Enrolled, and Followed the Same Procedures
Count of participants316
07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of California San Francisco
    San Francisco, California 94143, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Yang Y, Muzny DM, Reid JG, Bainbridge MN, Willis A, Ward PA, Braxton A, Beuten J, Xia F, Niu Z, Hardison M, Person R, Bekheirnia MR, Leduc MS, Kirby A, Pham P, Scull J, Wang M, Ding Y, Plon SE, Lupski JR, Beaudet AL, Gibbs RA, Eng CM. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 17;369(16):1502-11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306555. Epub 2013 Oct 2. PubMed 24088041 ↗
  • Norton ME, Rink BD. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening. Semin Perinatol. 2016 Feb;40(1):56-66. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.11.008. Epub 2015 Dec 24. PubMed 26725145 ↗
  • Cowan RS. Aspects of the history of prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1993 Apr;8(Suppl. 1):10-7. doi: 10.1159/000263869. PubMed 11653011 ↗
  • Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Ethical issues in perinatal genetics. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011 Apr;16(2):70-3. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2010.10.004. Epub 2010 Nov 3. PubMed 21051301 ↗
  • Donley G, Hull SC, Berkman BE. Prenatal whole genome sequencing: just because we can, should we? Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Jul-Aug;42(4):28-40. doi: 10.1002/hast.50. Epub 2012 Jun 20. PubMed 22777977 ↗
  • Rego S, Hoban H, Outram S, Zamora AN, Chen F, Sahin-Hodoglugil N, Anguiano B, Norstad M, Yip T, Lianoglou B, Sparks TN, Norton ME, Koenig BA, Slavotinek AM, Ackerman SL. Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach. Genet Med. 2022 Jun;24(6):1206-1216. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.02.004. Epub 2022 Apr 8. PubMed 35396980 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Sep 30, 2022
  • Statistical analysis plan · Feb 9, 2022
  • Informed consent form · May 27, 2021

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03482141
Lead sponsor
University of California, San Francisco
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 29, 2018
Start date
Aug 1, 2017
Primary completion
May 13, 2022
Completion
May 13, 2022
Results posted
Apr 14, 2023
Last update
Apr 14, 2023

Study contacts

Mary Norton, MD
principal investigator · University of California, San Francisco

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion