1. Randomized prospective evaluation of genome sequencing versus standard-of-care as a first molecular diagnostic test
- Author
-
Christine Y. Lu, Krishna G. Aragam, Candace Patterson, Pradeep Natarajan, Holly Head, Caroline Harley, Amit Khera, Miriam S. Udler, Deanna Brockman, Courtney Elizabeth Leonard, Heidi L. Rehm, Kimberly O’Brien, Lisa Mahanta, Matthew S. Lebo, Sekar Kathiresan, Renee C. Pelletier, and Christina Austin-Tse
- Subjects
Adult ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Standard of care ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,MEDLINE ,Chromosome Mapping ,Diagnostic test ,Article ,Confidence interval ,Molecular Diagnostic Techniques ,Internal medicine ,Cohort ,medicine ,Humans ,Clinical significance ,Genetic Testing ,Prospective Studies ,Pathology, Molecular ,Medical diagnosis ,Child ,business ,Genetics (clinical) ,Genetic testing - Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical relevance of clinical genome sequencing (cGS) as a first genetic test for patients with suspected monogenic disorders. Methods We conducted a prospective randomized study with pediatric and adult patients recruited from genetics clinics at Massachusetts General Hospital who were undergoing planned genetic testing. Participants were randomized into two groups: standard-of-care genetic testing (SOC) only or SOC and cGS. Results Two hundred four participants were enrolled, 202 were randomized to one of the intervention arms, and 99 received cGS. In total, cGS returned 16 molecular diagnoses that fully or partially explained the indication for testing in 16 individuals (16.2% of the cohort, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9–23.4%), which was not significantly different from SOC (18.2%, 95% CI 10.6–25.8%, P = 0.71). An additional eight molecular diagnoses reported by cGS had uncertain relevance to the participant's phenotype. Nevertheless, referring providers considered 20/24 total cGS molecular diagnoses (83%) to be explanatory for clinical features or worthy of additional workup. Conclusion cGS is technically suitable as a first genetic test. In our cohort, diagnostic yield was not significantly different from SOC. Further studies addressing other variant types and implementation challenges are needed to support feasibility and utility of broad-scale cGS adoption.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF