Advertisement

Cost-Effectiveness of Exome Sequencing versus Targeted Gene Panels for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Effusions and Non-Immune Hydrops Fetalis

      BACKGROUND

      Although exome sequencing has a greater overall diagnostic yield than targeted gene panels in the evaluation of nonimmune hydrops fetalis and fetal effusions, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is not known.

      OBJECTIVE

      This study aimed to evaluate the costs and outcomes of targeted gene panels vs exome sequencing for prenatally diagnosed nonimmune hydrops fetalis and fetal effusions when next-generation sequencing is pursued following nondiagnostic standard nonimmune hydrops fetalis evaluations, including karyotype or chromosomal microarray.

      STUDY DESIGN

      A decision-analytical model was designed using TreeAge Pro to compare 10 genetic testing strategies, including a single test only (RASopathy, metabolic, or nonimmune hydrops fetalis–targeted gene panel or exome sequencing), sequential testing (RASopathy panel followed by nonimmune hydrops fetalis panel, metabolic panel followed by nonimmune hydrops fetalis panel, RASopathy panel followed by exome sequencing, metabolic panel followed by exome sequencing, and nonimmune hydrops fetalis panel followed by exome sequencing), and no additional genetic testing. Our theoretical cohort included cases with normal karyotype and/or microarray and excluded cases of alloimmunization and congenital viral infections. As nonimmune hydrops fetalis and fetal effusions can present throughout gestation, whereas pregnancy management options vary depending on gestational age, outcomes were calculated for 3 time intervals: 10 to 18, 18 to 22, and >22 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. Additional outcomes included termination of pregnancy, stillbirth, neonatal death, and neonates born with mild, moderate, and severe or profound disease phenotypes. The cost-effectiveness threshold was $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year.

      RESULTS

      Among women <18 weeks of gestation, exome sequencing alone was the dominant strategy associated with the lowest costs ($221 million) and the highest quality-adjusted life years (10,288). Strategies with exome sequencing alone or as a sequential test resulted in more terminations but fewer stillbirths, neonatal deaths (NNDs), and affected infants than strategies without exome sequencing. Among women between 18 and 22 weeks of gestation, exome sequencing alone was also associated with the lowest costs ($188 million) and the highest quality-adjusted life years (8734), and similar trends were observed in pregnancy outcomes. Among patients >22 weeks of gestations, when termination was not available, exome sequencing was associated with lower costs ($300 million) and the highest quality-adjusted life years (8492). Exome sequencing was cost-effective up to a cost per test of $50,451 at <18 weeks of gestation, $50,423 at 18 to 22 weeks of gestation, and $9530 at >22 weeks of gestation. Targeted genetic panels and exome sequencing were cost-effective strategies compared with no additional genetic testing.

      CONCLUSION

      For cases of nonimmune hydrops fetalis and fetal effusions with nondiagnostic karyotype or microarray, next-generation sequencing was cost-effective compared with a strategy without additional genetic testing. For those that undergo next-generation sequencing, exome sequencing was the cost-effective strategy compared with all other testing strategies using targeted gene panels, leading to lower costs and fewer adverse perinatal outcomes. Exome sequencing was cost-effective in a setting without the option for pregnancy termination. These data supported the routine use of exome sequencing when next-generation sequencing is pursued for establishing a genetic diagnosis underlying otherwise unexplained nonimmune hydrops fetalis and fetal effusions.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Deden C
        • Neveling K
        • Zafeiropopoulou D
        • et al.
        Rapid whole exome sequencing in pregnancies to identify the underlying genetic cause in fetuses with congenital anomalies detected by ultrasound imaging.
        Prenat Diagn. 2020; 40: 972-983
        • Drury S
        • Williams H
        • Trump N
        • et al.
        Exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic abnormalities.
        Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35: 1010-1017
        • Lord J
        • McMullan DJ
        • Eberhardt RY
        • et al.
        Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study.
        Lancet. 2019; 393: 747-757
        • Mone F
        • Eberhardt RY
        • Hurles ME
        • et al.
        Fetal hydrops and the Incremental yield of Next-generation sequencing over standard prenatal Diagnostic testing (FIND) study: prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 58: 509-518
        • Petrovski S
        • Aggarwal V
        • Giordano JL
        • et al.
        Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study.
        Lancet. 2019; 393: 758-767
        • Sparks TN
        • Lianoglou BR
        • Adami RR
        • et al.
        Exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis in nonimmune hydrops fetalis.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 383: 1746-1756
        • Adams DR
        • Eng CM.
        Next-generation sequencing to diagnose suspected genetic disorders.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 201
        • LaDuca H
        • Farwell KD
        • Vuong H
        • et al.
        Exome sequencing covers >98% of mutations identified on targeted next generation sequencing panels.
        PLoS One. 2017; 12e0170843
        • Sun Y
        • Ruivenkamp CA
        • Hoffer MJ
        • et al.
        Next-generation diagnostics: gene panel, exome, or whole genome?.
        Hum Mutat. 2015; 36: 648-655
        • Bellini C
        • Hennekam RC.
        Non-immune hydrops fetalis: a short review of etiology and pathophysiology.
        Am J Med Genet A. 2012; 158A: 597-605
        • Mardy AH
        • Chetty SP
        • Norton ME
        • Sparks TN.
        A system-based approach to the genetic etiologies of non-immune hydrops fetalis.
        Prenat Diagn. 2019; 39: 732-750
        • Moreno CA
        • Kanazawa T
        • Barini R
        • et al.
        Non-immune hydrops fetalis: a prospective study of 53 cases.
        Am J Med Genet A. 2013; 161A: 3078-3086
        • Norton ME
        • Chauhan SP
        • Dashe JS.
        Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Clinical Guideline #7: nonimmune hydrops fetalis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 127-139
        • Santo S
        • Mansour S
        • Thilaganathan B
        • et al.
        Prenatal diagnosis of non-immune hydrops fetalis: what do we tell the parents?.
        Prenat Diagn. 2011; 31: 186-195
        • Sparks TN
        • Thao K
        • Lianoglou BR
        • et al.
        Nonimmune hydrops fetalis: identifying the underlying genetic etiology.
        Genet Med. 2019; 21: 1339-1344
        • Steurer MA
        • Peyvandi S
        • Baer RJ
        • et al.
        Epidemiology of live born infants with nonimmune hydrops fetalis-insights from a population-based dataset.
        J Pediatr. 2017; 187 (e3): 182-188
        • Takci S
        • Gharibzadeh M
        • Yurdakok M
        • et al.
        Etiology and outcome of hydrops fetalis: report of 62 cases.
        Pediatr Neonatol. 2014; 55: 108-113
        • Mardy AH
        • Rangwala N
        • Hernandez-Cruz Y
        • et al.
        Utility of chromosomal microarray for diagnosis in cases of nonimmune hydrops fetalis.
        Prenat Diagn. 2020; 40: 492-496
        • Stuurman KE
        • Joosten M
        • van der Burgt I
        • et al.
        Prenatal ultrasound findings of rasopathies in a cohort of 424 fetuses: update on genetic testing in the NGS era.
        J Med Genet. 2019; 56: 654-661
      1. GeneDx. 2020. Available at: https://www.genedx.com/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

      2. CGC Genetics. 2020. Available at: https://www.cgcgenetics.com/en. Accessed 06/01/2020.

      3. Integrated Genetics. 2020. Available at: https://integratedgenetics.com/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

      4. Prevention Genetics. 2020. Available at: https://www.preventiongenetics.com/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

      5. Invitae. 2020. Available at: https://www.invitae.com/en/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

      6. ARUP Laboratories. XXX. 2020.Available at: https://www.aruplab.com/genetics. Accessed 06/01/2020.

        • Norton ME
        • Ziffle JV
        • Lianoglou BR
        • Hodoglugil U
        • Devine WP
        • Sparks TN.
        Exome sequencing vs targeted gene panels for the evaluation of nonimmune hydrops fetalis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 226 (128.e1–11)
        • Deng Q
        • Fu F
        • Yu Q
        • et al.
        Nonimmune hydrops fetalis: genetic analysis and clinical outcome.
        Prenat Diagn. 2020; 40: 803-812
        • Derderian SC
        • Jeanty C
        • Fleck SR
        • et al.
        The many faces of hydrops.
        J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 50: 50-54
        • Fukushima K
        • Morokuma S
        • Fujita Y
        • et al.
        Short-term and long-term outcomes of 214 cases of non-immune hydrops fetalis.
        Early Hum Dev. 2011; 87: 571-575
        • Ota S
        • Sahara J
        • Mabuchi A
        • Yamamoto R
        • Ishii K
        • Mitsuda N.
        Perinatal and one-year outcomes of non-immune hydrops fetalis by etiology and age at diagnosis.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016; 42: 385-391
        • Sohan K
        • Carroll SG
        • De La Fuente S
        • Soothill P
        • Kyle P.
        Analysis of outcome in hydrops fetalis in relation to gestational age at diagnosis, cause and treatment.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001; 80: 726-730
        • Heinonen S
        • Ryynänen M
        • Kirkinen P.
        Etiology and outcome of second trimester non-immunologic fetal hydrops.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000; 79: 15-18
        • Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL
        • Norton ME
        • Shaw GM
        • et al.
        Risk of critical congenital heart defects by nuchal translucency norms.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212 (518.e1–10)
        • Kharrat R
        • Yamamoto M
        • Roume J
        • et al.
        Karyotype and outcome of fetuses diagnosed with cystic hygroma in the first trimester in relation to nuchal translucency thickness.
        Prenat Diagn. 2006; 26: 369-372
        • Martin JA
        • Hamilton BE
        • Osterman MJK
        • Driscoll AK
        • Drake P.
        Births: final data for 2017.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018; 67: 1-50
        • Croonen EA
        • Nillesen WM
        • Stuurman KE
        • et al.
        Prenatal diagnostic testing of the Noonan syndrome genes in fetuses with abnormal ultrasound findings.
        Eur J Hum Genet. 2013; 21: 936-942
        • Arjunan A
        • Bellerose H
        • Torres R
        • et al.
        Evaluation and classification of severity for 176 genes on an expanded carrier screening panel.
        Prenat Diagn. 2020; 40: 1246-1257
        • Lazarin GA
        • Hawthorne F
        • Collins NS
        • Platt EA
        • Evans EA
        • Haque IS.
        Systematic classification of disease severity for evaluation of expanded carrier screening panels.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9e114391
      7. Labcorp. 2020. Available at: https://www.labcorp.com/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

      8. Greenwood Genetic Center. 2020. Available at: https://www.ggc.org/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

        • Michalski ST
        • Porter J
        • Pauli RM.
        Costs and consequences of comprehensive stillbirth assessment.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 1027-1034
        • Xiong YQ
        • Tan J
        • Liu YM
        • et al.
        The risk of maternal parvovirus B19 infection during pregnancy on fetal loss and fetal hydrops: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Clin Virol. 2019; 114: 12-20
        • Lassen J
        • Bager P
        • Wohlfahrt J
        • Böttiger B
        • Melbye M.
        Parvovirus B19 infection in pregnancy and subsequent morbidity and mortality in offspring.
        Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42: 1070-1076
      9. The Regents of the University of California. 2020. Available at: https://humangenetics.ucsf.edu/. Accessed 06/01/2020.

        • Roberts SC
        • Gould H
        • Kimport K
        • Weitz TA
        • Foster DG.
        Out-of-pocket costs and insurance coverage for abortion in the United States.
        Womens Health Issues. 2014; 24: e211-e218
        • Gold KJ
        • Sen A
        • Xu X.
        Hospital costs associated with stillbirth delivery.
        Matern Child Health J. 2013; 17: 1835-1841
        • Phibbs CS
        • Schmitt SK
        • Cooper M
        • et al.
        Birth hospitalization costs and days of care for mothers and neonates in California, 2009-2011.
        J Pediatr. 2019; 204 (e14): 118-125
        • Walker BS
        • Nelson RE
        • Jackson BR
        • Grenache DG
        • Ashwood ER
        • Schmidt RL.
        A cost-effectiveness analysis of first trimester non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomies in the United States.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10e0131402
        • Benn P
        • Iyengar S
        • Crowley TB
        • et al.
        Pediatric healthcare costs for patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.
        Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2017; 5: 631-638
      10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. cms.gov. 2017. Available from: www.cms.gov. Accessed 06/01/2020.

        • Howell KB
        • Eggers S
        • Dalziel K
        • et al.
        A population-based cost-effectiveness study of early genetic testing in severe epilepsies of infancy.
        Epilepsia. 2018; 59: 1177-1187
        • Grobman WA
        • Dooley SL
        • Welshman EE
        • Pergament E
        • Calhoun EA.
        Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff?.
        Prenat Diagn. 2002; 22: 1195-1200
        • Kaimal AJ
        • Norton ME
        • Kuppermann M.
        Prenatal testing in the genomic age: clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 737-746
        • Saigal S
        • Stoskopf BL
        • Feeny D
        • et al.
        Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents.
        JAMA. 1999; 281: 1991-1997
        • Harris RA
        • Washington AE
        • Nease Jr, RF
        • Kuppermann M.
        Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold.
        Lancet. 2004; 363: 276-282
        • McCafferty EH
        • Scott LJ.
        Vestronidase Alfa: a review in mucopolysaccharidosis VII.
        BioDrugs. 2019; 33: 233-240