Birth defects that co-occur with non-syndromic gastroschisis and omphalocele.
Oluwafemi Omobola O,Benjamin Renata H,Navarro Sanchez Maria Luisa,Scheuerle Angela E,Schaaf Christian P,Mitchell Laura E,Langlois Peter H,Canfield Mark A,Swartz Michael D,Scott Daryl A,Northrup Hope,Ray Joseph W,McLean Scott D,Ludorf Katherine L,Chen Han,Lupo Philip J,Agopian A J
American journal of medical genetics. Part A
Gastroschisis and omphalocele are the two most common abdominal wall birth defects, and epidemiologic characteristics and frequency of occurrence as part of a syndromic condition suggest distinct etiologies between the two defects. We assessed complex patterns of defect co-occurrence with these defects separately using the Texas Birth Defects Registry. We used co-occurring defect analysis (CODA) to compute adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios for all observed birth defect patterns. There were 2,998 non-syndromic (i.e., no documented syndrome diagnosis identified) cases with gastroschisis and 789 (26%) of these had additional co-occurring defects. There were 720 non-syndromic cases with omphalocele, and 404 (56%) had additional co-occurring defects. Among the top 30 adjusted O/E ratios for gastroschisis, most of the co-occurring defects were related to the gastrointestinal system, though cardiovascular and kidney anomalies were also present. Several of the top 30 combinations co-occurring with omphalocele appeared suggestive of OEIS (omphalocele, exstrophy of cloaca, imperforate anus, spinal defects) complex. After the exclusion of additional cases with features suggestive of OEIS in a post-hoc sensitivity analysis, the top combinations involving defects associated with OEIS (e.g., spina bifida) were no longer present. The remaining top combinations involving omphalocele included cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and urogenital defects. In summary, we identified complex patterns of defects that co-occurred more frequently than expected with gastroschisis and omphalocele using a novel software platform. Better understanding differences in the patterns between gastroschisis and omphalocele could lead to additional etiologic insights.
Patterns of co-occurring birth defects among infants with hypospadias.
Ludorf Katherine L,Benjamin Renata H,Navarro Sanchez Maria Luisa,McLean Scott D,Northrup Hope,Mitchell Laura E,Langlois Peter H,Canfield Mark A,Scheuerle Angela E,Scott Daryl A,Schaaf Christian P,Ray Joseph W,Oluwafemi Omobola,Chen Han,Swartz Michael D,Lupo Philip J,Agopian A J
Journal of pediatric urology
INTRODUCTION:Hypospadias, one of the most common male genital birth defects, occurs in 1 out of every 200 male births in the United States and is increasing in prevalence globally. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to characterize the combinations of birth defects that co-occur with hypospadias more often than expected by chance, while accounting for the complex clustering patterns of congenital defects. STUDY DESIGN:We analyzed cases with hypospadias and at least one additional co-occurring defect from the Texas Birth Defect Registry born between 1999 and 2014. For each combination, we calculated adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios, using Co-Occurring Defect Analysis (CODA). RESULTS:Among 16,442 cases with hypospadias and without known syndromes, 2,084 (12.7%) had at least one additional defect. Many of the birth defect combinations within the highest adjusted O/E ratios included cardiac, musculoskeletal, and additional urogenital defects. For example, a top combination with an adjusted O/E of 139.0 included renal agenesis and dysgenesis, reduction defects of the upper limb, and other anomalies of upper limb (including shoulder girdle). High adjusted O/E ratios were also observed in combinations that included defects outside of the urogenital developmental field. For instance, the combination with the highest O/E ratio included buphthalmos, and congenital cataract and lens anomalies (adjusted O/E ratio: 192.9). Similar results were obtained when we restricted our analyses to cases with second- or third-degree hypospadias. DISCUSSION:Many combinations in the top results were expected (e.g., multiple urogenital defects); however, some combinations with seemingly unrelated patterns of defects may suggest the presence of some etiologic mechanisms yet to be identified. CONCLUSION:In summary, this study described patterns of co-occurring defect combinations with hypospadias that can inform further study and may provide insights for screening and diagnostic practices.
Co-occurring defect analysis: A platform for analyzing birth defect co-occurrence in registries.
Benjamin Renata H,Yu Xiao,Navarro Sanchez Maria Luisa,Chen Han,Mitchell Laura E,Langlois Peter H,Canfield Mark A,Swartz Michael D,Scheuerle Angela E,Scott Daryl A,Northrup Hope,Schaaf Christian P,Ray Joseph W,McLean Scott D,Lupo Philip J,Agopian A J
Birth defects research
BACKGROUND:Few studies have systematically evaluated birth defect co-occurrence patterns, perhaps, in part, due to the lack of software designed to implement large-scale, complex analytic methods. METHODS:We created an R-based platform, "co-occurring defect analysis" (CODA), designed to implement analyses of birth defect co-occurrence patterns in birth defect registries. CODA uses an established algorithm for calculating the observed-to-expected ratio of a given birth defect combination, accounting for the known tendency of birth defects to co-occur nonspecifically. To demonstrate CODA's feasibility, we evaluated the computational time needed to assess 2- to 5-way combinations of major birth defects in the Texas Birth Defects Registry (TBDR) (1999-2014). We report on two examples of pairwise patterns, defects co-occurring with trisomy 21 or with non-syndromic spina bifida, to demonstrate proof-of-concept. RESULTS:We evaluated combinations of 175 major birth defects among 206,784 infants in the TBDR. CODA performed efficiently in the data set, analyzing 1.5 million 5-way combinations in 18 hr. As anticipated, we identified large observed-to-expected ratios for the birth defects that co-occur with trisomy 21 or spina bifida. CONCLUSIONS:CODA is available for application to birth defect data sets and can be used to better understand co-occurrence patterns. Co-occurrence patterns elucidated by using CODA may be helpful for identifying new birth defect associations and may provide etiological insights regarding potentially shared pathogenic mechanisms. CODA may also have wider applications, such as assessing patterns of additional types of co-occurrence patterns in other large data sets (e.g., medical records).