Search

To evaluate the impact of implementing commercial whole exome sequencing (WES) and targeted gene panel testing in pregnancies with fetal anomalies.A retrospective chart review of 124 patients with sequencing performed by commercial laboratories.The diagnostic yield of WES and panel testing was 21.5% and 26%, respectively, based on likely pathogenic (LP) or pathogenic (P) variants. Forty-two percent of exomes and 32% of panels analysed had one or more variants of uncertain significance (VUS) reported. A multidisciplinary in-depth review of the fetal phenotype, disease phenotype, variant data, and, in some patients, additional prenatal or postnatal investigations increased the diagnostic yield by 5% for exome analysis and 6% for panel analysis.The diagnostic yield of WES and panel testing combined was 23% based on LP and P variants. Although the reporting of VUS contributed to a 5% increase in diagnostic yield for WES and 6% for panels, the large number of VUS reported by commercial laboratories has significant resource implications. Our results support the need for greater adherence to the recommendations on the prenatal reporting of VUS and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach that brings together clinical and laboratory expertise in prenatal genetics and genomics.

PURPOSE: Genomic test results, regardless of laboratory variant classification, require clinical practitioners to judge the applicability of a variant for medical decisions. Teaching and standardizing clinical interpretation of genomic variation calls for a methodology or tool. METHODS: To generate such a tool, we distilled the Clinical Genome Resource framework of causality and the American College of Medical Genetics/Association of Molecular Pathology and Quest Diagnostic Laboratory scoring of variant deleteriousness into the Clinical Variant Analysis Tool (CVAT). Applying this to 289 clinical exome reports, we compared the performance of junior practitioners with that of experienced medical geneticists and assessed the utility of reported variants. RESULTS: CVAT enabled performance comparable to that of experienced medical geneticists. In total, 124 of 289 (42.9%) exome reports and 146 of 382 (38.2%) reported variants supported a diagnosis. Overall, 10.5% (1 pathogenic [P] or likely pathogenic [LP] variant and 39 variants of uncertain significance [VUS]) of variants were reported in genes without established disease association; 20.2% (23 P/LP and 54 VUS) were in genes without sufficient phenotypic concordance; 7.3% (15 P/LP and 13 VUS) conflicted with the known molecular disease mechanism; and 24% (91 VUS) had insufficient evidence for deleteriousness. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CVAT standardized clinical interpretation of genomic variation and emphasized the need for collaborative and transparent reporting of genomic variation.

Importance Prompt recognition of a child with a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) has implications for cancer management, surveillance, genetic counseling, and cascade testing of relatives. Diagnosis of CPS requires practitioner expertise, access to genetic testing, and test result interpretation. This diagnostic process is not accessible in all institutions worldwide, leading to missed CPS diagnoses. Advances in electronic health technology can facilitate CPS risk assessment. Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a CPS prediction tool (McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines [MIPOGG]) in identifying children with cancer who have a low or high likelihood of having a CPS. Design, Setting, and Participants In this international, multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, 1071 pediatric (

Genome-wide sequencing (GWS) is a standard of care for diagnosis of suspected genetic disorders, but the proportion of patients found to have pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants ranges from less than 30% to more than 60% in reported studies. It has been suggested that the diagnostic rate can be improved by interpreting genomic variants in the context of each affected individual's full clinical picture and by regular follow-up and reinterpretation of GWS laboratory results. Trio exome sequencing was performed in 415 families and trio genome sequencing in 85 families in the CAUSES study. The variants observed were interpreted by a multidisciplinary team including laboratory geneticists, bioinformaticians, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, pediatric subspecialists, and the referring physician, and independently by a clinical laboratory using standard American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria. Individuals were followed for an average of 5.1 years after testing, with clinical reassessment and reinterpretation of the GWS results as necessary. The multidisciplinary team established a diagnosis of genetic disease in 43.0% of the families at the time of initial GWS interpretation, and longitudinal follow-up and reinterpretation of GWS results produced new diagnoses in 17.2% of families whose initial GWS interpretation was uninformative or uncertain. Reinterpretation also resulted in rescinding a diagnosis in four families (1.9%). Of the families studied, 33.6% had ACMG pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants related to the clinical indication. Close collaboration among clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, laboratory geneticists, bioinformaticians, and individuals’ primary physicians, with ongoing follow-up, reanalysis, and reinterpretation over time, can improve the clinical value of GWS.