Identification of Small Regions of Overlap from Copy Number Variable Regions in Patients with Hypospadias

The role of pre- and postnatal investigations in suspected isolated hypospadias

INTRODUCTION

Prenatal investigations are usually performed to diagnose severe or associated forms of hypospadias. However, the value of this workup and the correlation with the postnatal diagnosis and follow-up have not been studied in the literature. The aims of the study were to describe postnatal outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study. We included fetuses with a prenatal suspicion of isolated hypospadias (no associated ultrasound abnormality). Postnatal findings were described including neonatal examination with confirmation of the diagnosis or not of hypospadias, the diagnosis of isolated or associated hypospadias, investigations and management.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients with a suspicion of isolated hypospadias on prenatal ultrasound and available postnatal follow-up were included. The diagnosis of hypospadias was confirmed at neonatal examination for 17/21 (81 %) children. All 17 confirmed cases underwent at least one urological surgical procedure. Postnatally, the diagnosis of hypospadias in 4/17(23.5 %) cases was found to be associated with the following diagnosis: Denys-Drash syndrome, deletion of chromosome9 and duplication of chromosome20 involved in genital development, significant duplication of the short arm of chromosome 16, mosaic karyotypic abnormality [45, X (64 %)/46, XY (36 %)]. The hormonal assessment revealed 3/17(17.6 %) abnormalities: one diagnosis of partial androgen insensitivity syndrome and two cases of gonadal dysgenesis with low AMH and inhibin B.

CONCLUSION

Prenatal diagnosis of isolated hypospadias may be associated with postnatal genetic abnormalities. In this context, a prenatal assessment by amniocentesis with chromosomal microarray analysis can be an option after discussion with the woman.

Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.