Non-invasive prenatal testing leading to a maternal diagnosis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy

Identification of a rare missense mutation in GJB1 and prenatal diagnosis in a Chinese family with CMT: A case report

RATIONALE

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is a highly heterogeneous genetic disorder. To date, more than 90 genes have been implicated in the pathogenesis of CMT. Here, we report the identification of a rare causative mutation in a Chinese family with CMT and a pregnant patient underwent prenatal diagnosis.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 33-year-old woman with 21 + 6 weeks of pregnancy presented with progressive weakness of distal extremities after 23 years of age. A total of 8 individuals in 4 generations of her family had similar muscle weakness. On proband whole-exome sequencing (WES), a rare c.121G > A variant in the GJB1 gene was identified.

DIAGNOSIS

Based on the clinical and genetic findings, this patient was finally diagnosed with CMT.

INTERVENTIONS

The prenatal diagnosis was performed on the proband fetus.

OUTCOMES

The fetus did not carry this rare variant, and the pregnancy continued.

LESSONS

Our findings provide the first clinical evidence for the causative role of GJB1 c.121G > A variant in CMT. WES is a valuable method for diagnosing patients with CMT.

A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of the Genetic Assay Results of Foetuses with Isolated and Nonisolated Umbilical Cord Cyst

Objective

To analyse the risk of clinical chromosomal abnormalities in foetuses with umbilical cord cysts.

Methods

Data from all genetic assays that were performed as part of invasive prenatal diagnoses of umbilical cord cysts between October 2014 and June 2021 were retrospectively collected from Guangdong Women and Children Hospital. We compared the differences in genetic assay findings in isolated and nonisolated umbilical cord cyst cohorts.

Results

A total of 49 singleton pregnancies and 2 foetuses that were one of the cotwins in monochorionic twin pregnancies were enrolled in the cohort; 20 isolated and 31 nonisolated umbilical cord cysts were identified in the cohort. One foetus (5%, 1/20) in the isolated umbilical cord cyst group showed chromosomal abnormalities and 17p12 microduplication. Twelve cases (38.7%, 12/31) of chromosomal abnormalities, including seven cases of trisomy 18, two cases of trisomy 13 and three cases of microdeletion, were identified in the nonisolated umbilical cord cyst group. The incidences of chromosomal abnormalities between the two groups were significantly different (1/20, 5% vs 13/31, 38.7%, p=0.003). There was no relative pathological medical exome sequencing finding in the three foetuses suffering from nonisolated umbilical cord cysts whose parents chose to undergo chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and medical exome sequencing.

Conclusion

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the value of CMA in foetuses with umbilical cord cysts and suggested that copy number variants (CNVs) may be the basic genetic aetiological factors that should be considered for diagnostic evaluation. We recommended CMA as a basic genetic evaluation in cases of umbilical cord cysts, especially in nonisolated cases.

A false-positive result at non-invasive prenatal testing due to maternal 17p12 microduplication

OBJECTIVE

We present a false-positive result at non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) due to maternal 17p12 microduplication.

CASE REPORT

A 37-year-old, gravida 2, para 1, woman underwent amniocentesis at 19 weeks of gestation because of advanced maternal age. Amniocentesis revealed a karyotype of 46,XY. Simultaneous array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) revealed the result of a 1.3-Mb duplication of 17p12 or arr [GRCh37] 17p12 (14,111,772-15,442,066) × 3 encompassing four Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) genes of COX10, HS3ST3B1, PMP22 and TEKT3. The mother did not have any neurologic problems. The parents were phenotypically normal. aCGH analysis of maternal blood revealed that the mother carried the same 17p12 microduplication. Two years ago, NIPT analysis during her first pregnancy revealed abnormality of chromosome 17 with 17p11.2p12 duplication. However, subsequent aCGH analysis at amniocentesis revealed no genomic imbalance in the fetus, and no further examination of the parental bloods was made. During this pregnancy, prenatal ultrasound was unremarkable, and the parents decided to continue the pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

A false-positive result at NIPT should raise a suspicion of maternal genomic imbalance.

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing, What Patients Do Not Learn, May Be Due to Lack of Specialist Genetic Training by Gynecologists and Obstetricians?

Platforms for "non-invasive prenatal testing" (NIPT), or also referred to as "non-invasive prenatal screening" (NIPS) have been available for over 10 years, and are the most recent tools available to obtain information about genetic condition(s) of an unborn child. The highly praised advantage of NIPT-screening is that results can provide early hints on the detection of fetal trisomies and gonosomal numerical aberrations as early as the 10th week of gestation onward, without any need for invasive procedures, such as amniocenteses or alternatives. Understandably, the public along with gynecologists and obstetricians eagerly await these early test results. Their general hope for normal (=negative) test results is also justified, as in >95% of the tested cases such an outcome is to be expected. However, pregnant women can be disappointed and confused, particularly regarding the genetic information and proposed care when the results are positive, and these emotions are also common with false-positive and false-negative NIPT results. Finally, such concerns in understanding the advantages and limitations of this routinely ordered screening tool end up at Clinical Geneticists and Genetic counselors. In this review, general background on NIPT, differences of NIPT platforms, advantages and limitations of NIPT, as well as consequences of insufficient counseling before and after NIPT are summarized. To provide comprehensive care in all pregnancies situations, professionals need a careful attitude toward offering NIPT along with specially training and qualifications in counseling for these procedures. Often it is gynecologists and obstetricians who discuss the use of NIPT with patients; however, although these physicians have a highly qualified background and knowledge in their respective specialty area(s), they may lack specific training on the interpretation of NIPT-screening results. These potential knowledge gaps must be closed quickly and comprehensively by the corresponding scientific societies to ensure optimal patient care.