Importance: Optimal use of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in the pediatric setting requires an understanding of who should be considered for testing and when it should be performed to maximize clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. Objectives: To investigate the impact of WES in sequencing-naive children suspected of having a monogenic disorder and evaluate its cost-effectiveness if WES had been available at different time points in their diagnostic trajectory. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study was part of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance demonstration project. At the ambulatory outpatient clinics of the Victorian Clinical Genetics Services at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, children older than 2 years suspected of having a monogenic disorder were prospectively recruited from May 1 through November 30, 2015, by clinical geneticists after referral from general and subspecialist pediatricians. All children had nondiagnostic microarrays and no prior single-gene or panel sequencing. Exposures: All children underwent singleton WES with targeted phenotype-driven analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined the clinical utility of a molecular diagnosis and the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic trajectories, depending on timing of WES. Results: Of 61 children originally assessed, 44 (21 [48%] male and 23 [52%] female) aged 2 to 18 years (mean age at initial presentation, 28 months; range, 0-121 months) were recruited, and a diagnosis was achieved in 23 (52%) by singleton WES. The diagnoses were unexpected in 8 of 23 (35%), and clinical management was altered in 6 of 23 (26%). The mean duration of the diagnostic odyssey was 6 years, with each child having a mean of 19 tests and 4 clinical genetics and 4 nongenetics specialist consultations, and 26 (59%) underwent a procedure while under general anesthetic for diagnostic purposes. Economic analyses of the diagnostic trajectory identified that WES performed at initial tertiary presentation resulted in an incremental cost savings of A$9020 (US$6838) per additional diagnosis (95% CI, A$4304-A$15 404 [US$3263-US$11 678]) compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. Even if WES were performed at the first genetics appointment, there would be an incremental cost savings of A$5461 (US$4140) (95% CI, A$1433-A$10 557 [US$1086- US$8004]) per additional diagnosis compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. Conclusions and Relevance: Singleton WES in children with suspected monogenic conditions has high diagnostic yield, and cost-effectiveness is maximized by early application in the diagnostic pathway. Pediatricians should consider early referral of children with undiagnosed syndromes to clinical geneticists.
Importance: Optimal use of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in the pediatric setting requires an understanding of who should be considered for testing and when it should be performed to maximize clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. Objectives: To investigate the impact of WES in sequencing-naive children suspected of having a monogenic disorder and evaluate its cost-effectiveness if WES had been available at different time points in their diagnostic trajectory. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study was part of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance demonstration project. At the ambulatory outpatient clinics of the Victorian Clinical Genetics Services at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, children older than 2 years suspected of having a monogenic disorder were prospectively recruited from May 1 through November 30, 2015, by clinical geneticists after referral from general and subspecialist pediatricians. All children had nondiagnostic microarrays and no prior single-gene or panel sequencing. Exposures: All children underwent singleton WES with targeted phenotype-driven analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined the clinical utility of a molecular diagnosis and the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic trajectories, depending on timing of WES. Results: Of 61 children originally assessed, 44 (21 [48%] male and 23 [52%] female) aged 2 to 18 years (mean age at initial presentation, 28 months; range, 0-121 months) were recruited, and a diagnosis was achieved in 23 (52%) by singleton WES. The diagnoses were unexpected in 8 of 23 (35%), and clinical management was altered in 6 of 23 (26%). The mean duration of the diagnostic odyssey was 6 years, with each child having a mean of 19 tests and 4 clinical genetics and 4 nongenetics specialist consultations, and 26 (59%) underwent a procedure while under general anesthetic for diagnostic purposes. Economic analyses of the diagnostic trajectory identified that WES performed at initial tertiary presentation resulted in an incremental cost savings of A$9020 (US$6838) per additional diagnosis (95% CI, A$4304-A$15 404 [US$3263-US$11 678]) compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. Even if WES were performed at the first genetics appointment, there would be an incremental cost savings of A$5461 (US$4140) (95% CI, A$1433-A$10 557 [US$1086- US$8004]) per additional diagnosis compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. Conclusions and Relevance: Singleton WES in children with suspected monogenic conditions has high diagnostic yield, and cost-effectiveness is maximized by early application in the diagnostic pathway. Pediatricians should consider early referral of children with undiagnosed syndromes to clinical geneticists.
Authors: Arunkanth Ankala; Cristina da Silva; Francesca Gualandi; Alessandra Ferlini; Lora J H Bean; Christin Collins; Alice K Tanner; Madhuri R Hegde Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Yaping Yang; Donna M Muzny; Fan Xia; Zhiyv Niu; Richard Person; Yan Ding; Patricia Ward; Alicia Braxton; Min Wang; Christian Buhay; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; Alicia Hawes; Theodore Chiang; Magalie Leduc; Joke Beuten; Jing Zhang; Weimin He; Jennifer Scull; Alecia Willis; Megan Landsverk; William J Craigen; Mir Reza Bekheirnia; Asbjorg Stray-Pedersen; Pengfei Liu; Shu Wen; Wendy Alcaraz; Hong Cui; Magdalena Walkiewicz; Jeffrey Reid; Matthew Bainbridge; Ankita Patel; Eric Boerwinkle; Arthur L Beaudet; James R Lupski; Sharon E Plon; Richard A Gibbs; Christine M Eng Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hane Lee; Joshua L Deignan; Naghmeh Dorrani; Samuel P Strom; Sibel Kantarci; Fabiola Quintero-Rivera; Kingshuk Das; Traci Toy; Bret Harry; Michael Yourshaw; Michelle Fox; Brent L Fogel; Julian A Martinez-Agosto; Derek A Wong; Vivian Y Chang; Perry B Shieh; Christina G S Palmer; Katrina M Dipple; Wayne W Grody; Eric Vilain; Stanley F Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ivo F A C Fokkema; Peter E M Taschner; Gerard C P Schaafsma; J Celli; Jeroen F J Laros; Johan T den Dunnen Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Carol Jean Saunders; Neil Andrew Miller; Sarah Elizabeth Soden; Darrell Lee Dinwiddie; Aaron Noll; Noor Abu Alnadi; Nevene Andraws; Melanie LeAnn Patterson; Lisa Ann Krivohlavek; Joel Fellis; Sean Humphray; Peter Saffrey; Zoya Kingsbury; Jacqueline Claire Weir; Jason Betley; Russell James Grocock; Elliott Harrison Margulies; Emily Gwendolyn Farrow; Michael Artman; Nicole Pauline Safina; Joshua Erin Petrikin; Kevin Peter Hall; Stephen Francis Kingsmore Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Marta Girdea; Sergiu Dumitriu; Marc Fiume; Sarah Bowdin; Kym M Boycott; Sébastien Chénier; David Chitayat; Hanna Faghfoury; M Stephen Meyn; Peter N Ray; Joyce So; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Michael Brudno Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Kelly D Farwell; Layla Shahmirzadi; Dima El-Khechen; Zöe Powis; Elizabeth C Chao; Brigette Tippin Davis; Ruth M Baxter; Wenqi Zeng; Cameron Mroske; Melissa C Parra; Stephanie K Gandomi; Ira Lu; Xiang Li; Hong Lu; Hsiao-Mei Lu; David Salvador; David Ruble; Monica Lao; Soren Fischbach; Jennifer Wen; Shela Lee; Aaron Elliott; Charles L M Dunlop; Sha Tang Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Zornitza Stark; Tiffany Boughtwood; Peta Phillips; John Christodoulou; David P Hansen; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Ainsley J Newson; Clara L Gaff; Andrew H Sinclair; Kathryn N North Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Tiong Yang Tan; Sebastian Lunke; Belinda Chong; Dean Phelan; Miriam Fanjul-Fernandez; Justine E Marum; Vanessa Siva Kumar; Zornitza Stark; Alison Yeung; Natasha J Brown; Chloe Stutterd; Martin B Delatycki; Simon Sadedin; Melissa Martyn; Ilias Goranitis; Natalie Thorne; Clara L Gaff; Susan M White Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Stephen F Kingsmore; Audrey Henderson; Mallory J Owen; Michelle M Clark; Christian Hansen; David Dimmock; Christina D Chambers; Laura L Jeliffe-Pawlowski; Charlotte Hobbs Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 8.617
Authors: Zornitza Stark; Lena Dolman; Teri A Manolio; Brad Ozenberger; Sue L Hill; Mark J Caulfied; Yves Levy; David Glazer; Julia Wilson; Mark Lawler; Tiffany Boughtwood; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Peter Goodhand; Ewan Birney; Kathryn N North Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: In-Hee Lee; Jose A Negron; Carles Hernandez-Ferrer; William Jefferson Alvarez; Kenneth D Mandl; Sek Won Kong Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Riley E Perszyk; Scott J Myers; Hongjie Yuan; Alasdair J Gibb; Hiro Furukawa; Alexander I Sobolevsky; Stephen F Traynelis Journal: J Physiol Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 5.182