PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of the traditional, comprehensive clinical evaluation and targeted genetic testing, within a general genetics clinic. These data are critically needed to develop clinically and economically grounded diagnostic algorithms that consider presenting phenotype, traditional genetics testing, and the emerging role of next-generation sequencing (whole-exome/genome sequencing). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 500 unselected consecutive patients who received traditional genetic diagnostic evaluations at a tertiary medical center. We calculated the diagnosis rate, number of visits to diagnosis, genetic tests, and the cost of testing. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were determined to not have a genetic disorder; 212 of the remaining 461 (46%) received a genetic diagnosis, and 72% of these were diagnosed on the first visit. The cost per subsequent successful genetic diagnosis was estimated at $25,000. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients were diagnosed using the traditional approach, most at the initial visit. For those remaining undiagnosed, next-generation sequencing may be clinically and economically beneficial. Estimating a 50% success rate for next-generation sequencing in undiagnosed genetic disorders, its application after the first clinical visit could result in a higher rate of genetic diagnosis at a considerable cost savings per successful diagnosis.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of the traditional, comprehensive clinical evaluation and targeted genetic testing, within a general genetics clinic. These data are critically needed to develop clinically and economically grounded diagnostic algorithms that consider presenting phenotype, traditional genetics testing, and the emerging role of next-generation sequencing (whole-exome/genome sequencing). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 500 unselected consecutive patients who received traditional genetic diagnostic evaluations at a tertiary medical center. We calculated the diagnosis rate, number of visits to diagnosis, genetic tests, and the cost of testing. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were determined to not have a genetic disorder; 212 of the remaining 461 (46%) received a genetic diagnosis, and 72% of these were diagnosed on the first visit. The cost per subsequent successful genetic diagnosis was estimated at $25,000. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients were diagnosed using the traditional approach, most at the initial visit. For those remaining undiagnosed, next-generation sequencing may be clinically and economically beneficial. Estimating a 50% success rate for next-generation sequencing in undiagnosed genetic disorders, its application after the first clinical visit could result in a higher rate of genetic diagnosis at a considerable cost savings per successful diagnosis.
Authors: Laurel K Willig; Josh E Petrikin; Laurie D Smith; Carol J Saunders; Isabelle Thiffault; Neil A Miller; Sarah E Soden; Julie A Cakici; Suzanne M Herd; Greyson Twist; Aaron Noll; Mitchell Creed; Patria M Alba; Shannon L Carpenter; Mark A Clements; Ryan T Fischer; J Allyson Hays; Howard Kilbride; Ryan J McDonough; Jamie L Rosterman; Sarah L Tsai; Lee Zellmer; Emily G Farrow; Stephen F Kingsmore Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Jessica X Chong; Kati J Buckingham; Shalini N Jhangiani; Corinne Boehm; Nara Sobreira; Joshua D Smith; Tanya M Harrell; Margaret J McMillin; Wojciech Wiszniewski; Tomasz Gambin; Zeynep H Coban Akdemir; Kimberly Doheny; Alan F Scott; Dimitri Avramopoulos; Aravinda Chakravarti; Julie Hoover-Fong; Debra Mathews; P Dane Witmer; Hua Ling; Kurt Hetrick; Lee Watkins; Karynne E Patterson; Frederic Reinier; Elizabeth Blue; Donna Muzny; Martin Kircher; Kaya Bilguvar; Francesc López-Giráldez; V Reid Sutton; Holly K Tabor; Suzanne M Leal; Murat Gunel; Shrikant Mane; Richard A Gibbs; Eric Boerwinkle; Ada Hamosh; Jay Shendure; James R Lupski; Richard P Lifton; David Valle; Deborah A Nickerson; Michael J Bamshad Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: H A Jinnah; Alberto Albanese; Kailash P Bhatia; Francisco Cardoso; Gustavo Da Prat; Tom J de Koning; Alberto J Espay; Victor Fung; Pedro J Garcia-Ruiz; Oscar Gershanik; Joseph Jankovic; Ryuji Kaji; Katya Kotschet; Connie Marras; Janis M Miyasaki; Francesca Morgante; Alexander Munchau; Pramod Kumar Pal; Maria C Rodriguez Oroz; Mayela Rodríguez-Violante; Ludger Schöls; Maria Stamelou; Marina Tijssen; Claudia Uribe Roca; Andres de la Cerda; Emilia M Gatto Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Elisa A Mahler; Jessika Johannsen; Konstantinos Tsiakas; Katja Kloth; Sabine Lüttgen; Chris Mühlhausen; Bader Alhaddad; Tobias B Haack; Tim M Strom; Fanny Kortüm; Thomas Meitinger; Ania C Muntau; René Santer; Christian Kubisch; Davor Lessel; Jonas Denecke; Maja Hempel Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.594