Literature DB >> 30398534

Clinical Utility of Reinterpreting Previously Reported Genomic Epilepsy Test Results for Pediatric Patients.

Jeffrey A SoRelle1, Drew M Thodeson2,3, Susan Arnold3, Garrett Gotway4,5, Jason Y Park1,4.   

Abstract

Importance: Clinical genomic tests that examine the DNA sequence of large numbers of genes are commonly used in the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in pediatric patients. The permanence of genomic test result interpretations is not known. Objective: To investigate the value of reinterpreting previously reported genomic test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study retrospectively reviewed and reinterpreted genomic test results from July 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015, for pediatric patients who previously underwent genomic epilepsy testing at a single tertiary care pediatric health care facility. Reinterpretation of previously reported variants was conducted in May 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient reports from clinical genomic epilepsy tests were reviewed, and all reported genetic variants were reinterpreted using 2015 consensus standards and guidelines for interpreting hereditary genetic variants. Three classification tiers were used in the reinterpretation: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, variant of uncertain significance (VUS), or benign or likely benign variant.
Results: A total of 309 patients had genomic epilepsy tests performed (mean [SD] age, 5.6 [0.8] years; 163 [52.8%] male), and 185 patients had a genetic variant reported. The reported variants resulted in 61 patients with and 124 patients without a genetic diagnosis (VUS variants only). On reinterpretation of all reported variants, 67 of the 185 patients (36.2%) had a change in variant classification. Of the 67 patients with a genetic variant change in interpretation, 21 (31.3%) experienced a change in diagnosis. During the 5 years of the study, 19 of 61 patients (31.1%) with a genetic diagnosis and 48 of 124 patients (38.7%) with undiagnosed conditions (VUS only) had their results reclassified. Review of genomic reports issued during the final 2 years of the study identified reclassification of variants in 4 of 16 patients (25.0%) with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and 11 of 41 patients (26.8%) with a VUS. Conclusions and Relevance: The identified high rate of reinterpretation in this study suggests that interpretation of genomic test results has rapidly evolved during the past 5 years. These findings suggest that reinterpretation of genomic test results should be performed at least every 2 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30398534      PMCID: PMC6583457          DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2302

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Pediatr        ISSN: 2168-6203            Impact factor:   16.193


  13 in total

1.  Systematic reanalysis of genomic data improves quality of variant interpretation.

Authors:  S M Hiatt; M D Amaral; K M Bowling; C R Finnila; M L Thompson; D E Gray; J M J Lawlor; J N Cochran; E M Bebin; K B Brothers; K M East; W V Kelley; N E Lamb; S E Levy; E J Lose; M B Neu; C A Rich; S Simmons; R M Myers; G S Barsh; G M Cooper
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Periodic reanalysis of whole-genome sequencing data enhances the diagnostic advantage over standard clinical genetic testing.

Authors:  Gregory Costain; Rebekah Jobling; Susan Walker; Miriam S Reuter; Meaghan Snell; Sarah Bowdin; Ronald D Cohn; Lucie Dupuis; Stacy Hewson; Saadet Mercimek-Andrews; Cheryl Shuman; Neal Sondheimer; Rosanna Weksberg; Grace Yoon; M Stephen Meyn; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Stephen W Scherer; Roberto Mendoza-Londono; Christian R Marshall
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 3.  Current and Emerging Therapies of Severe Epileptic Encephalopathies.

Authors:  Abeer J Hani; Mohamad A Mikati
Journal:  Semin Pediatr Neurol       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 1.636

Review 4.  Emerging Antiepileptic Drugs for Severe Pediatric Epilepsies.

Authors:  Basanagoud Mudigoudar; Sarah Weatherspoon; James W Wheless
Journal:  Semin Pediatr Neurol       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 1.636

5.  Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare disorders with congenital anomalies and/or intellectual disability: substantial interest of prospective annual reanalysis.

Authors:  Sophie Nambot; Julien Thevenon; Paul Kuentz; Yannis Duffourd; Emilie Tisserant; Ange-Line Bruel; Anne-Laure Mosca-Boidron; Alice Masurel-Paulet; Daphné Lehalle; Nolwenn Jean-Marçais; Mathilde Lefebvre; Pierre Vabres; Salima El Chehadeh-Djebbar; Christophe Philippe; Frederic Tran Mau-Them; Judith St-Onge; Thibaud Jouan; Martin Chevarin; Charlotte Poé; Virginie Carmignac; Antonio Vitobello; Patrick Callier; Jean-Baptiste Rivière; Laurence Faivre; Christel Thauvin-Robinet
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Authors:  Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples.

Authors:  Roddy Walsh; Kate L Thomson; James S Ware; Birgit H Funke; Jessica Woodley; Karen J McGuire; Francesco Mazzarotto; Edward Blair; Anneke Seller; Jenny C Taylor; Eric V Minikel; Daniel G MacArthur; Martin Farrall; Stuart A Cook; Hugh Watkins
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans.

Authors:  Monkol Lek; Konrad J Karczewski; Eric V Minikel; Kaitlin E Samocha; Eric Banks; Timothy Fennell; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; James S Ware; Andrew J Hill; Beryl B Cummings; Taru Tukiainen; Daniel P Birnbaum; Jack A Kosmicki; Laramie E Duncan; Karol Estrada; Fengmei Zhao; James Zou; Emma Pierce-Hoffman; Joanne Berghout; David N Cooper; Nicole Deflaux; Mark DePristo; Ron Do; Jason Flannick; Menachem Fromer; Laura Gauthier; Jackie Goldstein; Namrata Gupta; Daniel Howrigan; Adam Kiezun; Mitja I Kurki; Ami Levy Moonshine; Pradeep Natarajan; Lorena Orozco; Gina M Peloso; Ryan Poplin; Manuel A Rivas; Valentin Ruano-Rubio; Samuel A Rose; Douglas M Ruderfer; Khalid Shakir; Peter D Stenson; Christine Stevens; Brett P Thomas; Grace Tiao; Maria T Tusie-Luna; Ben Weisburd; Hong-Hee Won; Dongmei Yu; David M Altshuler; Diego Ardissino; Michael Boehnke; John Danesh; Stacey Donnelly; Roberto Elosua; Jose C Florez; Stacey B Gabriel; Gad Getz; Stephen J Glatt; Christina M Hultman; Sekar Kathiresan; Markku Laakso; Steven McCarroll; Mark I McCarthy; Dermot McGovern; Ruth McPherson; Benjamin M Neale; Aarno Palotie; Shaun M Purcell; Danish Saleheen; Jeremiah M Scharf; Pamela Sklar; Patrick F Sullivan; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Ming T Tsuang; Hugh C Watkins; James G Wilson; Mark J Daly; Daniel G MacArthur
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Making new genetic diagnoses with old data: iterative reanalysis and reporting from genome-wide data in 1,133 families with developmental disorders.

Authors:  Caroline F Wright; Jeremy F McRae; Stephen Clayton; Giuseppe Gallone; Stuart Aitken; Tomas W FitzGerald; Philip Jones; Elena Prigmore; Diana Rajan; Jenny Lord; Alejandro Sifrim; Rosemary Kelsell; Michael J Parker; Jeffrey C Barrett; Matthew E Hurles; David R FitzPatrick; Helen V Firth
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Communicating new knowledge on previously reported genetic variants.

Authors:  Samuel J Aronson; Eugene H Clark; Matthew Varugheese; Samantha Baxter; Lawrence J Babb; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Promises, promises, and precision medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Joyner; Nigel Paneth
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  Clinical Genetic Screening in Adult Patients with Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Enrico Cocchi; Jordan Gabriela Nestor; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?

Authors:  Barbara J Evans; Gail Javitt; Ralph Hall; Megan Robertson; Pilar Ossorio; Susan M Wolf; Thomas Morgan; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Revisiting Genetic Testing for Patients with Negative Results: IPEX and FOXP3.

Authors:  Sarah K Baxter; Suleyman Gulsuner; David Hagin; Troy R Torgerson; Tom Walsh
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 8.542

5.  Clinical Interpretation of Sequence Variants.

Authors:  Junyu Zhang; Yanyi Yao; Haixian He; Jun Shen
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2020-06

6.  Next-generation sequencing for constitutional variants in the clinical laboratory, 2021 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Authors:  Catherine Rehder; Lora J H Bean; David Bick; Elizabeth Chao; Wendy Chung; Soma Das; Julianne O'Daniel; Heidi Rehm; Vandana Shashi; Lisa M Vincent
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing.

Authors:  Colin M E Halverson; Laurie M Connors; Bronson C Wessinger; Ellen W Clayton; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 2.183

8.  Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel.

Authors:  Yu Sun; Jiale Xiang; Yidong Liu; Sen Chen; Jintao Yu; Jiguang Peng; Zijing Liu; Lisha Chen; Jun Sun; Yun Yang; Yaping Yang; Yulin Zhou; Zhiyu Peng
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 3.063

9.  Diagnostic Yield and Cost-Effectiveness of "Dynamic" Exome Analysis in Epilepsy with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Tertiary-Center Experience in Northern Italy.

Authors:  Costanza Varesio; Simone Gana; Alessia Asaro; Elena Ballante; Raffaella Fiamma Cabini; Elena Tartara; Michela Bagnaschi; Ludovica Pasca; Marialuisa Valente; Simona Orcesi; Cristina Cereda; Pierangelo Veggiotti; Renato Borgatti; Enza Maria Valente; Valentina De Giorgis
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-25

Review 10.  Genomic testing in pediatric epilepsy.

Authors:  Drew M Thodeson; Jason Y Park
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud       Date:  2019-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.