Rapid Whole-Genomic Sequencing and a Targeted Neonatal Gene Panel in Infants With a Suspected Genetic Disorder

Author:

Maron Jill L.1,Kingsmore Stephen2,Gelb Bruce D.3,Vockley Jerry4,Wigby Kristen25,Bragg Jennifer3,Stroustrup Annemarie6,Poindexter Brenda7,Suhrie Kristen8,Kim Jae H.9,Diacovo Thomas4,Powell Cynthia M.10,Trembath Andrea10,Guidugli Lucia2,Ellsworth Katarzyna A.2,Reed Dallas11,Kurfiss Anne11,Breeze Janis L.12,Trinquart Ludovic12,Davis Jonathan M.1112

Affiliation:

1. Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence

2. Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine, San Diego, California

3. Mindich Child Health and Development Institute and Departments of Pediatrics and Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York

4. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

5. Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, San Diego

6. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York, New York

7. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

8. Indiana University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics and Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indianapolis

9. Perinatal Institute, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio

10. University of North Carolina Children’s Research Institute, University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill

11. Department of Pediatrics, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

12. Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

Abstract

ImportanceGenomic testing in infancy guides medical decisions and can improve health outcomes. However, it is unclear whether genomic sequencing or a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test provides comparable molecular diagnostic yields and times to return of results.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of genomic sequencing with those of a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) study was a prospective, comparative, multicenter study of 400 hospitalized infants younger than 1 year of age (proband) and their parents, when available, suspected of having a genetic disorder. The study was conducted at 6 US hospitals from June 2019 to November 2021.ExposureEnrolled participants underwent simultaneous testing with genomic sequencing and a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test. Each laboratory performed an independent interpretation of variants guided by knowledge of the patient’s phenotype and returned results to the clinical care team. Change in clinical management, therapies offered, and redirection of care was provided to families based on genetic findings from either platform.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary end points were molecular diagnostic yield (participants with ≥1 pathogenic variant or variant of unknown significance), time to return of results, and clinical utility (changes in patient care).ResultsA molecular diagnostic variant was identified in 51% of participants (n = 204; 297 variants identified with 134 being novel). Molecular diagnostic yield of genomic sequencing was 49% (95% CI, 44%-54%) vs 27% (95% CI, 23%-32%) with the targeted gene-sequencing test. Genomic sequencing did not report 19 variants found by the targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test; the targeted gene-sequencing test did not report 164 variants identified by genomic sequencing as diagnostic. Variants unidentified by the targeted genomic-sequencing test included structural variants longer than 1 kilobase (25.1%) and genes excluded from the test (24.6%) (McNemar odds ratio, 8.6 [95% CI, 5.4-14.7]). Variant interpretation by laboratories differed by 43%. Median time to return of results was 6.1 days for genomic sequencing and 4.2 days for the targeted genomic-sequencing test; for urgent cases (n = 107) the time was 3.3 days for genomic sequencing and 4.0 days for the targeted gene-sequencing test. Changes in clinical care affected 19% of participants, and 76% of clinicians viewed genomic testing as useful or very useful in clinical decision-making, irrespective of a diagnosis.Conclusions and RelevanceThe molecular diagnostic yield for genomic sequencing was higher than a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test, but the time to return of routine results was slower. Interlaboratory variant interpretation contributes to differences in molecular diagnostic yield and may have important consequences for clinical management.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3