Copy number variations of the 15q11.2 region at breakpoints 1-2 (BP1-BP2) have been associated with variable phenotypes and low penetrance. Detection of such variations in the prenatal setting can result in significant parental anxiety. The clinical significance of pre- and postnatally detected 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletions and duplications was assessed. Of 11,004 chromosomal microarray tests performed in a single referral lab (7596 prenatal, 3408 postnatal), deletions were detected in 66 cases: 39 in prenatal tests (0.51%) and 27 in postnatal tests (0.79%). Duplications were detected in 94 cases: 62 prenatal tests (0.82%) and 32 postnatal tests (0.94%). The prevalence of deletions and duplications among clinically indicated prenatal tests (0.57% and 0.9%, respectively) did not differ significantly in comparison to unindicated tests (0.49% and 0.78%, respectively). The prevalence of deletions and duplications among postnatal tests performed for clinical indications was similar to the prevalence in healthy individuals (0.73% and 1% vs. 0.98% and 0.74%, respectively). The calculated penetrance of deletions and duplications over the background risk was 2.18% and 1.16%, respectively. We conclude that the pathogenicity of 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletions and duplications is low. Opting out the report of these copy number variations to both clinicians and couples should be considered.

Objective: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) is currently indicated for fetal malformations. Some neurocognitive genetic disorders may not have a prenatal phenotype. We assessed the prevalence of prenatally detectable phenotypes among patients with neurocognitive syndromes diagnosed postnatally by ES.Methods: The medical files of a cohort of 138 patients diagnosed postnatally with a neurocognitive disorder using ES were reviewed for prenatal sonographic data. The Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database was searched for prenatally detectable phenotypes for all genes identified.Results: Prenatal imaging data were available for 122 cases. Of these, 29 (23.75%) had fetal structural abnormalities and another 29 had other ultrasound abnormalities (fetal growth restriction, polyhydramnios, elevated nuchal translucency). In 30 patients, structural aberrations that were not diagnosed prenatally were detected at birth; in 21 (17.2%), the abnormalities could theoretically be detected prenatally by third‐trimester/targeted scans. According to OMIM, 55.9% of the diagnosed genes were not associated with structural anomalies.Conclusions: Most patients (52.5%) with postnatally diagnosed neurocognitive disorders did not have prenatal sonographic findings indicating prenatal ES should be considered. The prevalence of specific prenatal phenotypes such as fetal growth restriction and polyhydramnios in our cohort suggests that additional prenatal findings should be assessed as possible indications for prenatal ES.

Objective: Large deletions and duplications account for 65%–80% of pathogenic Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) variants. A nationwide carrier screening for DMD was initiated in Israel in 2020. We assessed the carrier rate and spectrum of variants detected in a cohort of women screened for DMD carrier status and analyzed screening efficacy and challenges related to DMD population screening.Methods: A cohort of 12,362 women were tested at a single institute using multiplex ligation‐dependent probe amplification based copy number analysis of the 79 DMD exons. Consecutive sequencing of the primer region was performed when a single exon deletion was suspected.Results: Deletions involving multiple exons were detected in seven cases and duplications involving multiple exons were found in four. Of these, nine were pathogenic based on previous reports and familial segregation testing, translating to a carrier rate of 1:1374. A family history was reported in three cases. Single exon deletions were suspected in 81 cases; further sequencing detected a single nucleotide variant affecting probe hybridization. These cases clustered according to ethnic origin.Discussion: Population screening for DMD has a significant yield. Most carriers did not report a family history of dystrophinopathies. Screening should be adjusted for methodological limitations. Some cases may require extensive genetic counseling and work‐up.