4.6 Article

Clinical sensitivity of prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis via CFTR carrier testing in a United States panethnic population

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 405-414

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000139505.06194.39

关键词

cystic fibrosis; CFTR; prenatal screening; clinical sensitivity; ethnicity

资金

  1. ODCDC CDC HHS [UR3/CCU319352] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To estimate CFTR mutation frequencies, clinical sensitivities (proportions of carrier couples or affected fetuses detected), and birth prevalence estimates for broad racial/ethnic groups and for a panethnic U.S. population. Methods: Published sources of information were identified, corrected when appropriate, and summarized. Combining racial/ethnic-specific mutation frequencies and birth prevalence estimates allowed the computation of panethnic estimates. Results: Two of the 25 recommended mutations do not meet the 0.1% threshold in a panethnic population set by the American College of Medical Genetics. The clinical sensitivities are estimated to be 71.9%, 51.7%, 41.6%, 88.6%, and 23.4% for non-Hispanic Caucasians, Hispanic Caucasian, African American, Ashkenazi Jewish Caucasian, and Asian American couples, respectively. Birth prevalence estimates are 1:2,500, 1:13,500, 1:15,100, 1:2,270, and 1:35,100, whereas the number of couples needed to screen to detect an affected fetus are about 3,200, 26,120; 36,040; 2,600, and 129,600, respectively, for the same racial/ethnic groups. Conclusions: Overall, the panethnic estimates for CFTR mutation frequencies are similar to those for non-Hispanic Caucasians. However, large differences in both clinical sensitivity and birth prevalence exist between the broad racial/ethnic groups examined. Whether and how the differences in the numbers of couples needed to screen to detect an affected fetus are to be included in prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis needs to be more explicitly addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据