Search

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) aids in the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders. Herein, we report the molecular diagnostic yield and spectrum of genetic alterations contributing to disease in 700 pediatric cases analyzed at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The overall diagnostic yield was 23%, with three cases having more than one molecular diagnosis and 2.6% having secondary/additional findings. A candidate gene finding was reported in another 8.4% of cases. The clinical indications with the highest diagnostic yield were neurodevelopmental disorders (including seizures), whereas immune- and oncology-related indications were negatively associated with molecular diagnosis. The rapid expansion of knowledge regarding the genome's role in human disease necessitates reanalysis of CES samples. To capture these new discoveries, a subset of cases (n = 240) underwent reanalysis, with an increase in diagnostic yield. We describe our experience reporting CES results in a pediatric setting, including reporting of secondary findings, reporting newly discovered genetic conditions, and revisiting negative test results. Finally, we highlight the challenges associated with implementing critical updates to the CES workflow. Although these updates are necessary, they demand an investment of time and resources from the laboratory. In summary, these data demonstrate the clinical utility of exome sequencing and reanalysis, while highlighting the critical considerations for continuous improvement of a CES test in a clinical laboratory.

Exome reanalysis is useful for providing molecular diagnoses for previously uninformative samples. However, challenges exist in implementing a practical solution for clinicians and laboratories. This study complements the current literature by providing practical considerations for patient-level and cohort-level reanalyses. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute assembled the Document Development Committee and an interpretation working group that developed the framework for reevaluation of exome-based data. We describe two distinct but complementary approaches toward exome reanalyses: clinician-initiated patient-level reanalysis, and laboratory-initiated cohort-level reanalysis. We highlight the advantages and constraints for both approaches, and provide a high-level conceptual guide for ordering clinicians and laboratories through the critical decision pathways. Because clinical exome sequencing continues to be the standard of care in genetics, exome reanalysis would be critical in increasing the overall diagnostic yield. A systematic guide will facilitate the efficient adoption of reevaluation of exome data for laboratories, health care professionals, genetic counselors, and clinicians.

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) has become the preferred diagnostic platform for complex pediatric disorders with suspected monogenic etiologies. Despite rapid advancements, the major challenge still resides in identifying the casual variants among the thousands of variants detected during CES testing, and thus establishing a molecular diagnosis. To improve the clinical exome diagnostic efficiency, we developed Phenoxome, a robust phenotype-driven model that adopts a network-based approach to facilitate automated variant prioritization. Phenoxome dissects the phenotypic manifestation of a patient in concert with their genomic profile to filter and then prioritize variants that are likely to affect the function of the gene (potentially pathogenic variants). To validate our method, we have compiled a clinical cohort of 105 positive patient samples that represent a wide range of genetic heterogeneity. Phenoxome identifies the causative variants within the top 5, 10, or 25 candidates in more than 50%, 71%, or 88% of these exomes, respectively. Furthermore, we show that our method is optimized for clinical testing by outperforming the current state-of-art method. We have demonstrated the performance of Phenoxome using a clinical cohort and showed that it enables rapid and accurate interpretation of clinical exomes. Phenoxome is available at https://phenoxome.chop.edu/.

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) has a reported diagnostic yield of 20% to 30% for most clinical indications. The ongoing discovery of novel gene–disease and variant–disease associations are expected to increase the diagnostic yield of CES. Performing systematic reanalysis of previously nondiagnostic CES samples represents a significant challenge for clinical laboratories. Here, we present the results of a novel automated reanalysis methodology applied to 300 CES samples initially analyzed between June 2014 and September 2016. Application of our reanalysis methodology reduced reanalysis variant analysis burden by >93% and correctly captured 70 of 70 previously identified diagnostic variants among 60 samples with previously identified diagnoses. Notably, reanalysis of 240 initially nondiagnostic samples using information available on July 1, 2017, revealed 38 novel diagnoses, representing a 15.8% increase in diagnostic yield. Modeling monthly iterative reanalysis of 240 nondiagnostic samples revealed a diagnostic rate of 0.57% of samples per month. Modeling the workload required for monthly iterative reanalysis of nondiagnostic samples revealed a variant analysis burden of approximately 5 variants/month for proband-only and approximately 0.5 variants/month for trio samples. Approximately 45% of samples required evaluation during each monthly interval, and 61.3% of samples were reevaluated across three consecutive reanalyses. In sum, automated reanalysis methods can facilitate efficient reevaluation of nondiagnostic samples using up-to-date literature and can provide significant value to clinical laboratories.

GvHD results in death in the majority of steroid-resistant patients. This report assesses the safety and efficacy of two regional intra-arterial steroid (IAS) treatment protocols in the largest published cohort of patients with resistant/dependent hepatic and/or gastrointestinal GvHD, as well as identification of predictors of response to IAS and survival. One hundred and twenty patients with hepatic, gastrointestinal GvHD or both were given IAS. Gastrointestinal initial response (IR) and complete response (CR) were documented in 67.9% and 47.6%, respectively, whereas hepatic IR/CR in 54.9% and 33.3%, respectively. The predictors of gastrointestinal CR were lower peak GvHD and steroid-dependent (SD) GvHD. The predictors for hepatic CR were male patient, reduced intensity conditioning and SD GvHD. Twenty-six of the 120 patients (21.6%) are currently alive (median follow-up for the survivors 91.5 months). The 12 months’ overall survival is 30% with no treatment-associated deaths. Predictors of 12 months’ survival were as follows: first transplant, age<20 years, non-TBI regimen and GvHD CR. Shorter time to gastrointestinal IR but not time to hepatic IR was associated with improved 12 months’ survival. IAS appears to be safe and effective. Gastrointestinal treatment is more effective than hepatic treatment. In our study, we conclude our current recommendations for IAS treatment.