The BElgian PREnatal MicroArray (BEMAPRE) database: A systematic nationwide repository of fetal genomic aberrations.

[en] OBJECTIVE: With the replacement of karyotyping by chromosomal microarray (CMA) in invasive prenatal diagnosis, new challenges have arisen. By building a national database, we standardize the classification and reporting of prenatally detected copy number variants (CNVs) across Belgian genetic centers. This database, which will link genetic and ultrasound findings with postnatal development, forms a unique resource to investigate the pathogenicity of variants of uncertain significance and to refine the phenotypic spectrum of pathogenic and susceptibility CNVs. METHODS: The BElgian PREnatal MicroArray (BEMAPRE) consortium is a collaboration of all genetic centers in Belgium. We collected data from all invasive prenatal procedures performed between May 2013 and July 2016. RESULTS: In this three-year period, 13266 prenatal CMAs were performed. By national agreement, a limited number of susceptibility CNVs and no variants of uncertain significance were reported. Added values for using CMA versus conventional karyotyping were 1.8% in the general invasive population and 2.7% in cases with an ultrasound anomaly. Of the reported CNVs 31.5% would have remained undetected with NIPT as the first-tier test. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a national database for prenatal CNV data allows for a uniform reporting policy and the investigation of the prenatal and postnatal genotype-phenotype correlation.

Disciplines :

Genetics & genetic processes

Author, co-author :

Muys, Joke

Blaumeiser, Bettina

Jacquemyn, Yves

Bandelier, Claude

Brison, Nathalie

BULK, Saskia ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Unilab > Clinique

Chiarappa, Patrizia

COURTENS, Winnie ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Unilab > Service de génétique

De Leener, Anne

De Rademaeker, Marjan

More authors (23 more)

Language :

English

Title :

The BElgian PREnatal MicroArray (BEMAPRE) database: A systematic nationwide repository of fetal genomic aberrations.

Publication date :

2018

Journal title :

Prenatal Diagnosis

ISSN :

0197-3851

eISSN :

1097-0223

Publisher :

John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, United States - New Jersey

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Commentary :

Available on ORBi :

since 04 January 2019

Statistics

Number of views

68 (6 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Brady PD, Vermeesch JR. Genomic microarrays: a technology overview. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(4):336-343.
Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175-2184.
de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LC, Van Opstal D, Galjaard RJ, Go AT. Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(2):139-146.
Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, et al. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):610-620.
Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):6-14.
Oneda B, Rauch A. Microarrays in prenatal diagnosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;42:53-63.
Brady PD, Delle Chiaie B, Christenhusz G, et al. A prospective study of the clinical utility of prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities and an exploration of a framework for reporting unclassified variants and risk factors. Genet Med. 2014;16(6):469-476.
Srebniak MI, Diderich KE, Joosten M, et al. Prenatal SNP array testing in 1000 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: causative, unexpected and susceptibility CNVs. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(5):645-651.
Vanakker O, Vilain C, Janssens K, et al. Implementation of genomic arrays in prenatal diagnosis: the Belgian approach to meet the challenges. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57(4):151-156.
Weiner C. Anticipate and communicate: ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the presidential Commission for the Study of bioethical issues). Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(6):562-564.
Coe BP, Witherspoon K, Rosenfeld JA, et al. Refining analyses of copy number variation identifies specific genes associated with developmental delay. Nat Genet. 2014;46(10):1063-1071.
Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, Eichler EE, Cuckle H, Shaffer LG. Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genet Med. 2013;15(6):478-481.
Cooper GM, Coe BP, Girirajan S, et al. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nat Genet. 2011;43(9):838-846.
Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, et al. Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1321-1331.
Nenadic O, Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. J Stat Softw. 2007;20(3).
Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2014; URL http://www.R-project.org/
Burnside RD, Pasion R, Mikhail FM, et al. Microdeletion/microduplication of proximal 15q11.2 between BP1 and BP2: a susceptibility region for neurological dysfunction including developmental and language delay. Hum Genet. 2011;130(4):517-528.
Srebniak MI, van Zutven LJ, Petit F, et al. Interstitial 6q21q23 duplication—variant of variable phenotype and incomplete penetrance or benign duplication? Mol Cytogenet. 2016;9(1):43.
Grati FR, Molina Gomes D, Ferreira JC, et al. Prevalence of recurrent pathogenic microdeletions and microduplications in over 9500 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(8):801-809.
Botto LD, May K, Fernhoff PM, et al. A population-based study of the 22q11.2 deletion: phenotype, incidence, and contribution to major birth defects in the population. Pediatrics. 2003;112(1 Pt 1):101-107.
Maisenbacher MK, Merrion K, Pettersen B, et al. Incidence of the 22q11.2 deletion in a large cohort of miscarriage samples. Mol Cytogenet. 2017;10(1):6.
Wentzel C, Fernstrom M, Ohrner Y, Annerén G, Thuresson AC. Clinical variability of the 22q11.2 duplication syndrome. Eur J Med Genet. 2008;51(6):501-510.
Rosa RF, Zen PR, Ricachinevsky CP, et al. 22q11.2 duplication and congenital heart defects. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2009;93(4):e67-e69. e55-7
Torres F, Barbosa M, Maciel P. Recurrent copy number variations as risk factors for neurodevelopmental disorders: critical overview and analysis of clinical implications. J Med Genet. 2016;53(2):73-90.
Picinelli C, Lintas C, Piras IS, et al. Recurrent 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 microdeletions and microduplications in the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2016;171(8):1088-1098.
Chaste P, Sanders SJ, Mohan KN, et al. Modest impact on risk for autism spectrum disorder of rare copy number variants at 15q11.2, specifically breakpoints 1 to 2. Autism Res. 2014;7(3):355-362.
Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, Savage MS, Jackson L, Wapner RJ. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med. 2013;15(2):139-145.
van der Steen SL, Riedijk SR, Verhagen-Visser J, et al. The psychological impact of prenatal diagnosis and disclosure of susceptibility loci: first impressions of Parents' experiences. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(6):1227-1234.
Srebniak MI, Joosten M, Knapen M, et al. Frequency of submicroscopic chromosome aberrations in pregnancies without increased risk for structural chromosome aberrations: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:205-206.
Girirajan S, Johnson RL, Tassone F, et al. Global increases in both common and rare copy number load associated with autism. Hum Mol Genet. 2013;22(14):2870-2880.
Johnson K, Kelley J, Saxton V, Walker SP, Hui L. Declining invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: a comparison of tertiary hospital and national data from 2012 to 2015. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(2):152-156.
Srebniak MI, Knapen M, Polak M, et al. The influence of SNP-based chromosomal microarray and NIPT on the diagnostic yield in 10,000 fetuses with and without fetal ultrasound anomalies. Hum Mutat. 2017;38(7):880-888.
Konialis C, Pangalos C. Dilemmas in prenatal chromosomal diagnosis revealed through a single Center's 30 Years' experience and 90,000 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38(3):218-232.