BACKGROUND: For clinical genetic testing of cardiomyopathy (CMP), current guidelines do not address which gene panels to use: targeted panels specific to a CMP phenotype or expanded (panCMP) panels that include genes associated with multiple phenotypic subtypes. AIM: Our objective was to assess the clinical utility of targeted versus panCMP panel testing in pediatric CMPs. METHODS: 151 pediatric patients with primary hypertrophic (n = 66), dilated (n = 64), restrictive (n = 8), or left-ventricular non-compaction (n = 13) CMP who underwent clinical genetic panel testing at a single centre were included. PanCMP (n = 47) and targeted panel testing (n = 104) were compared for yield of pathogenic variants and variants of unknown significance (VUS). RESULTS: Pathogenic variants were identified in 26% of patients, 42% had indeterminate results (only VUS detected), and 32% had negative results. Yield was lower (15%) in panCMP vs. targeted panel testing (32%) (P = .03) in all CMP subtypes. VUS detection was higher with panCMP (87%) than targeted panel testing (30%) (P <.0001). PanCMP panel testing only identified pathogenic variants in genes that overlapped targeted panels. CONCLUSION: PanCMP testing did not increase diagnostic yield compared to targeted panel testing. Until accuracy of variant interpretation with panCMP panels improves, targeted panels may be suitable for clinical testing in pediatric CMP.
BACKGROUND: For clinical genetic testing of cardiomyopathy (CMP), current guidelines do not address which gene panels to use: targeted panels specific to a CMP phenotype or expanded (panCMP) panels that include genes associated with multiple phenotypic subtypes. AIM: Our objective was to assess the clinical utility of targeted versus panCMP panel testing in pediatric CMPs. METHODS: 151 pediatric patients with primary hypertrophic (n = 66), dilated (n = 64), restrictive (n = 8), or left-ventricular non-compaction (n = 13) CMP who underwent clinical genetic panel testing at a single centre were included. PanCMP (n = 47) and targeted panel testing (n = 104) were compared for yield of pathogenic variants and variants of unknown significance (VUS). RESULTS: Pathogenic variants were identified in 26% of patients, 42% had indeterminate results (only VUS detected), and 32% had negative results. Yield was lower (15%) in panCMP vs. targeted panel testing (32%) (P = .03) in all CMP subtypes. VUS detection was higher with panCMP (87%) than targeted panel testing (30%) (P <.0001). PanCMP panel testing only identified pathogenic variants in genes that overlapped targeted panels. CONCLUSION: PanCMP testing did not increase diagnostic yield compared to targeted panel testing. Until accuracy of variant interpretation with panCMP panels improves, targeted panels may be suitable for clinical testing in pediatric CMP.
Authors: Arthur A M Wilde; Christopher Semsarian; Manlio F Márquez; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Michael J Ackerman; Euan A Ashley; Back Sternick Eduardo; Héctor Barajas-Martinez; Elijah R Behr; Connie R Bezzina; Jeroen Breckpot; Philippe Charron; Priya Chockalingam; Lia Crotti; Michael H Gollob; Steven Lubitz; Naomasa Makita; Seiko Ohno; Martín Ortiz-Genga; Luciana Sacilotto; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Wataru Shimizu; Nona Sotoodehnia; Rafik Tadros; James S Ware; David S Winlaw; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Takeshi Aiba; Andreas Bollmann; Jong-Il Choi; Aarti Dalal; Francisco Darrieux; John Giudicessi; Mariana Guerchicoff; Kui Hong; Andrew D Krahn; Ciorsti Mac Intyre; Judith A Mackall; Lluís Mont; Carlo Napolitano; Pablo Ochoa Juan; Petr Peichl; Alexandre C Pereira; Peter J Schwartz; Jon Skinner; Christoph Stellbrink; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Thomas Deneke Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2022-05-31
Authors: Stephanie M Ware; Surbhi Bhatnagar; Phillip J Dexheimer; James D Wilkinson; Arthi Sridhar; Xiao Fan; Yufeng Shen; Muhammad Tariq; Jeffrey A Schubert; Steven D Colan; Ling Shi; Charles E Canter; Daphne T Hsu; Neha Bansal; Steven A Webber; Melanie D Everitt; Paul F Kantor; Joseph W Rossano; Elfriede Pahl; Paolo Rusconi; Teresa M Lee; Jeffrey A Towbin; Ashwin K Lal; Wendy K Chung; Erin M Miller; Bruce Aronow; Lisa J Martin; Steven E Lipshultz Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Arthur A M Wilde; Christopher Semsarian; Manlio F Márquez; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Michael J Ackerman; Euan A Ashley; Eduardo Back Sternick; Héctor Barajas-Martinez; Elijah R Behr; Connie R Bezzina; Jeroen Breckpot; Philippe Charron; Priya Chockalingam; Lia Crotti; Michael H Gollob; Steven Lubitz; Naomasa Makita; Seiko Ohno; Martín Ortiz-Genga; Luciana Sacilotto; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Wataru Shimizu; Nona Sotoodehnia; Rafik Tadros; James S Ware; David S Winlaw; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Takeshi Aiba; Andreas Bollmann; Jong Il Choi; Aarti Dalal; Francisco Darrieux; John Giudicessi; Mariana Guerchicoff; Kui Hong; Andrew D Krahn; Ciorsti MacIntyre; Judith A Mackall; Lluís Mont; Carlo Napolitano; Juan Pablo Ochoa; Petr Peichl; Alexandre C Pereira; Peter J Schwartz; Jon Skinner; Christoph Stellbrink; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Thomas Deneke Journal: Europace Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 5.486
Authors: Oliver James Dillon; Sebastian Lunke; Zornitza Stark; Alison Yeung; Natalie Thorne; Clara Gaff; Susan M White; Tiong Yang Tan Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.246