PURPOSE: The prevalence of developmental disabilities in the United States is reported to be 13.87% across all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Microarrays have been recommended as first-tier tests for these patients. This study reports the diagnostic yield and potential actionability of findings using a high-density chromosomal microarray (CMA). METHODS: The diagnostic yield of CytoScan Dx Assay in 960 patients was assessed with the Riggs criteria of actionability to evaluate predicted clinical utility. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of the subjects were assessed using a microarray as part of historical routine patient care (RPC). The rate of pathogenic findings was similar between RPC (13.3%) and the CytoScan Dx Assay (13.8%). Among the 138 patients who did not receive microarray as RPC, the diagnostic yield for CytoScan Dx Assay was 23.9% as compared with 14.5%, indicating a 9.4% improvement when using higher-resolution methods. Thirty-five percent of patients with abnormal findings had predicted clinical management implications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the clinical performance of CytoScan Dx Assay. The assay's diagnostic yields are similar to those found in other studies of CMAs. Thirty-five percent of patients with abnormal findings are predicted to have clinical management implications that may improve health outcomes.
PURPOSE: The prevalence of developmental disabilities in the United States is reported to be 13.87% across all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Microarrays have been recommended as first-tier tests for these patients. This study reports the diagnostic yield and potential actionability of findings using a high-density chromosomal microarray (CMA). METHODS: The diagnostic yield of CytoScan Dx Assay in 960 patients was assessed with the Riggs criteria of actionability to evaluate predicted clinical utility. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of the subjects were assessed using a microarray as part of historical routine patient care (RPC). The rate of pathogenic findings was similar between RPC (13.3%) and the CytoScan Dx Assay (13.8%). Among the 138 patients who did not receive microarray as RPC, the diagnostic yield for CytoScan Dx Assay was 23.9% as compared with 14.5%, indicating a 9.4% improvement when using higher-resolution methods. Thirty-five percent of patients with abnormal findings had predicted clinical management implications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the clinical performance of CytoScan Dx Assay. The assay's diagnostic yields are similar to those found in other studies of CMAs. Thirty-five percent of patients with abnormal findings are predicted to have clinical management implications that may improve health outcomes.
Authors: Coleen A Boyle; Sheree Boulet; Laura A Schieve; Robin A Cohen; Stephen J Blumberg; Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp; Susanna Visser; Michael D Kogan Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Michael E Coulter; David T Miller; David J Harris; Pamela Hawley; Jonathan Picker; Amy E Roberts; Magdi M Sobeih; Mira Irons Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Gurdeep S Sagoo; Adam S Butterworth; Simon Sanderson; Charles Shaw-Smith; Julian P T Higgins; Hilary Burton Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Lindsay B Henderson; Carolyn D Applegate; Elizabeth Wohler; Molly B Sheridan; Julie Hoover-Fong; Denise A S Batista Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Julián Nevado; Rafaella Mergener; María Palomares-Bralo; Karen Regina Souza; Elena Vallespín; Rocío Mena; Víctor Martínez-Glez; María Ángeles Mori; Fernando Santos; Sixto García-Miñaur; Fé García-Santiago; Elena Mansilla; Luis Fernández; María Luisa de Torres; Mariluce Riegel; Pablo Lapunzina Journal: Genet Mol Biol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.771
Authors: Joanna Wiszniewska; Weimin Bi; Chad Shaw; Pawel Stankiewicz; Sung-Hae L Kang; Amber N Pursley; Seema Lalani; Patricia Hixson; Tomasz Gambin; Chun-hui Tsai; Hans-Georg Bock; Maria Descartes; Frank J Probst; Fernando Scaglia; Arthur L Beaudet; James R Lupski; Christine Eng; Sau Wai Cheung; Carlos Bacino; Ankita Patel Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Karen S Ho; Hope Twede; Rena Vanzo; Erin Harward; Charles H Hensel; Megan M Martin; Stephanie Page; Andreas Peiffer; Patricia Mowery-Rushton; Moises Serrano; E Robert Wassman Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Shibalik Misra; Greg Peters; Elizabeth Barnes; Simone Ardern-Holmes; Richard Webster; Christopher Troedson; Shekeeb S Mohammad; Deepak Gill; Manoj Menezes; Sachin Gupta; Peter Procopis; Jayne Antony; Manju A Kurian; Russell C Dale Journal: Neurol Genet Date: 2019-10-23
Authors: Karen S Ho; E Robert Wassman; Adrianne L Baxter; Charles H Hensel; Megan M Martin; Aparna Prasad; Hope Twede; Rena J Vanzo; Merlin G Butler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 5.923