Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 608

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study

Petrovski, Slavé, Aggarwal, Vimla, Giordano, Jessica L, Stosic, Melissa, Wou, Karen, Bier, Louise, Spiegel, Erica, Brennan, Kelly, Stong, Nicholas, Jobanputra, Vaidehi, Ren, Zhong, Zhu, Xiaolin, Mebane, Caroline, Nahum, Odelia, Wang, Quanli, Kamalakaran, Sitharthan, Malone, Colin, Anyane-Yeboa, Kwame, Miller, Russell, Levy, Brynn, Goldstein, David B, Wapner, Ronald J·2019·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND Identification of chromosomal aneuploidies and copy number variants that are associated with fetal structural anomalies has substantial value. Although whole-exome sequencing (WES) has been applied to case series of a few selected prenatal cases, its value in routine clinical settings has not been prospectively assessed in a large unselected cohort of fetuses with structural anomalies. We therefore aimed to determine the incremental diagnostic yield (ie, the added value) of WES following uninformative results of standard investigations with karyotype testing and chromosomal microarray in an unselected cohort of sequential pregnancies showing fetal structural anomalies. METHODS In this prospective cohort study, the parents of fetuses who were found to have a structural anomaly in a prenatal ultrasound were screened for possible participation in the study. These participants were predominantly identified in or were referred to the Columbia University Carmen and John Thain Center for Prenatal Pediatrics (New York, NY, USA). Fetuses with confirmed aneuploidy or a causal pathogenic copy number variant were excluded from WES analyses. By use of WES of the fetuses and parents (parent-fetus trios), we identified genetic variants that indicated an underlying cause (diagnostic genetic variants) and genetic variants that met the criteria of bioinformatic signatures that had previously been described to be significantly enriched among diagnostic genetic variants. FINDINGS Between April 24, 2015, and April 19, 2017, 517 sequentially identified pregnant women found to have fetuses with a structural anomaly were screened for their eligibility for inclusion in our study. 71 (14%) couples declined testing, 87 (17%) trios were missing at least one DNA sample (from either parent or the fetus), 69 (13%) trios had a clinically relevant abnormal karyotype or chromosomal microarray finding, 51 (10%) couples did not consent to WES or withdrew consent, and five (1%) samples were not of good enough quality for analysis. DNA samples from 234 (45%) eligible trios were therefore used for analysis of the primary outcome. By use of trio sequence data, we identified diagnostic genetic variants in 24 (10%) families. Mutations with bioinformatic signatures that were indicative of pathogenicity but with insufficient evidence to be considered diagnostic were also evaluated; 46 (20%) of the 234 fetuses assessed were found to have such signatures. INTERPRETATION Our analysis of WES data in a prospective cohort of unselected fetuses with structural anomalies shows the value added by WES following the use of routine genetic tests. Our findings suggest that, in cases of fetal anomalies in which assessment with karyotype testing and chromosomal microarray fail to determine the underlying cause of a structural anomaly, WES can add clinically relevant information that could assist current management of a pregnancy. The unique challenges of WES-based prenatal diagnostics require analysis by a multidisciplinary team of perinatal practitioners and laboratory specialists. FUNDING Institute for Genomic Medicine (Columbia University Irving Medical Center).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32042-7

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 608

Metadata

Authors
Petrovski, S., Aggarwal, V., Giordano, J. L., Stosic, M., Wou, K., Bier, L., Spiegel, E., Brennan, K., Stong, N., Jobanputra, V., Ren, Z., Zhu, X., Mebane, C., Nahum, O., Wang, Q., Kamalakaran, S., Malone, C., Anyane-Yeboa, K., Miller, R., Levy, B., Goldstein, D. B., & Wapner, R. J.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
393
Issue
10173
Pages
758-767
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2912938672
Cited by
608
References
28
FWCI
70.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32042-7
The paper
Petrovski, S., Aggarwal, V., Giordano, J. L., Stosic, M., Wou, K., Bier, L., Spiegel, E., Brennan, K., Stong, N., Jobanputra, V., Ren, Z., Zhu, X., Mebane, C., Nahum, O., Wang, Q., Kamalakaran, S., Malone, C., Anyane-Yeboa, K., Miller, R., . . . Wapner, R. J. (2019). Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32042-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.