Parker C Wilson1, Latisha Love-Gregory1, Meagan Corliss2, Samantha McNulty2, Jonathan W Heusel2,3, Joseph P Gaut1,4. 1. Division of Anatomic and Molecular Pathology, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Division of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a useful tool for evaluating patients with suspected genetic kidney disease. Clinical practice relies on the use of targeted gene panels that are ordered based on patient presentation. We compare the diagnostic yield of clinical panel-based testing to exome analysis. Methods: In total, 324 consecutive patients underwent physician-ordered, panel-based NGS testing between December 2014 and October 2018. Gene panels were available for four clinical phenotypes, including atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n=224), nephrotic syndrome (n=56), cystic kidney disease (n=26), and Alport syndrome (n=13). Variants were analyzed and clinical reports were signed out by a pathologist or clinical geneticist at the time of testing. Subsequently, all patients underwent retrospective exome analysis to detect additional clinically significant variants in kidney disease genes that were not analyzed as part of the initial clinical gene panel. Resulting variants were classified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2015 guidelines. Results: In the initial physician-ordered gene panels, we identified clinically significant pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 13% of patients (n=42/324). CFHR3-CFHR1 homozygous deletion was detected in an additional 13 patients with aHUS without a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Diagnostic yield of the initial physician-ordered gene panel was 20% and varied between groups. Retrospective exome analysis identified 18 patients with a previously unknown pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a kidney disease gene and eight patients with a high-risk APOL1 genotype. Overall, retrospective exome analysis increased the diagnostic yield of panel-based testing from 20% to 30%. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of a broad and collaborative approach between the clinical laboratory and their physician clients that employs additional analysis when a targeted panel of kidney disease-causing genes does not return a clinically meaningful result.
Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a useful tool for evaluating patients with suspected genetic kidney disease. Clinical practice relies on the use of targeted gene panels that are ordered based on patient presentation. We compare the diagnostic yield of clinical panel-based testing to exome analysis. Methods: In total, 324 consecutive patients underwent physician-ordered, panel-based NGS testing between December 2014 and October 2018. Gene panels were available for four clinical phenotypes, including atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n=224), nephrotic syndrome (n=56), cystic kidney disease (n=26), and Alport syndrome (n=13). Variants were analyzed and clinical reports were signed out by a pathologist or clinical geneticist at the time of testing. Subsequently, all patients underwent retrospective exome analysis to detect additional clinically significant variants in kidney disease genes that were not analyzed as part of the initial clinical gene panel. Resulting variants were classified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2015 guidelines. Results: In the initial physician-ordered gene panels, we identified clinically significant pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 13% of patients (n=42/324). CFHR3-CFHR1 homozygous deletion was detected in an additional 13 patients with aHUS without a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Diagnostic yield of the initial physician-ordered gene panel was 20% and varied between groups. Retrospective exome analysis identified 18 patients with a previously unknown pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a kidney disease gene and eight patients with a high-risk APOL1 genotype. Overall, retrospective exome analysis increased the diagnostic yield of panel-based testing from 20% to 30%. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of a broad and collaborative approach between the clinical laboratory and their physician clients that employs additional analysis when a targeted panel of kidney disease-causing genes does not return a clinically meaningful result.
Authors: Giulio Genovese; David J Friedman; Michael D Ross; Laurence Lecordier; Pierrick Uzureau; Barry I Freedman; Donald W Bowden; Carl D Langefeld; Taras K Oleksyk; Andrea L Uscinski Knob; Andrea J Bernhardy; Pamela J Hicks; George W Nelson; Benoit Vanhollebeke; Cheryl A Winkler; Jeffrey B Kopp; Etienne Pays; Martin R Pollak Journal: Science Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Nina Mann; Daniela A Braun; Kassaundra Amann; Weizhen Tan; Shirlee Shril; Dervla M Connaughton; Makiko Nakayama; Ronen Schneider; Thomas M Kitzler; Amelie T van der Ven; Jing Chen; Hadas Ityel; Asaf Vivante; Amar J Majmundar; Ankana Daga; Jillian K Warejko; Svjetlana Lovric; Shazia Ashraf; Tilman Jobst-Schwan; Eugen Widmeier; Hannah Hugo; Shrikant M Mane; Leslie Spaneas; Michael J G Somers; Michael A Ferguson; Avram Z Traum; Deborah R Stein; Michelle A Baum; Ghaleb H Daouk; Richard P Lifton; Shannon Manzi; Khashayar Vakili; Heung Bae Kim; Nancy M Rodig; Friedhelm Hildebrandt Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: A Richards; M R Buddles; R L Donne; B S Kaplan; E Kirk; M C Venning; C L Tielemans; J A Goodship; T H Goodship Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2001-01-17 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Amelie T van der Ven; Dervla M Connaughton; Hadas Ityel; Nina Mann; Makiko Nakayama; Jing Chen; Asaf Vivante; Daw-Yang Hwang; Julian Schulz; Daniela A Braun; Johanna Magdalena Schmidt; David Schapiro; Ronen Schneider; Jillian K Warejko; Ankana Daga; Amar J Majmundar; Weizhen Tan; Tilman Jobst-Schwan; Tobias Hermle; Eugen Widmeier; Shazia Ashraf; Ali Amar; Charlotte A Hoogstraaten; Hannah Hugo; Thomas M Kitzler; Franziska Kause; Caroline M Kolvenbach; Rufeng Dai; Leslie Spaneas; Kassaundra Amann; Deborah R Stein; Michelle A Baum; Michael J G Somers; Nancy M Rodig; Michael A Ferguson; Avram Z Traum; Ghaleb H Daouk; Radovan Bogdanović; Natasa Stajić; Neveen A Soliman; Jameela A Kari; Sherif El Desoky; Hanan M Fathy; Danko Milosevic; Muna Al-Saffar; Hazem S Awad; Loai A Eid; Aravind Selvin; Prabha Senguttuvan; Simone Sanna-Cherchi; Heidi L Rehm; Daniel G MacArthur; Monkol Lek; Kristen M Laricchia; Michael W Wilson; Shrikant M Mane; Richard P Lifton; Richard S Lee; Stuart B Bauer; Weining Lu; Heiko M Reutter; Velibor Tasic; Shirlee Shril; Friedhelm Hildebrandt Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Heon Yung Gee; Ikhyun Jun; Daniela A Braun; Jennifer A Lawson; Jan Halbritter; Shirlee Shril; Caleb P Nelson; Weizhen Tan; Deborah Stein; Ari J Wassner; Michael A Ferguson; Zoran Gucev; John A Sayer; Danko Milosevic; Michelle Baum; Velibor Tasic; Min Goo Lee; Friedhelm Hildebrandt Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Aaron N Patrick; Joshua H Cabrera; Anna L Smith; Xiaojiang S Chen; Heide L Ford; Rui Zhao Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2013-02-24 Impact factor: 15.369
Authors: Sylvia Hoff; Jan Halbritter; Daniel Epting; Valeska Frank; Thanh-Minh T Nguyen; Jeroen van Reeuwijk; Christopher Boehlke; Christoph Schell; Takayuki Yasunaga; Martin Helmstädter; Miriam Mergen; Emilie Filhol; Karsten Boldt; Nicola Horn; Marius Ueffing; Edgar A Otto; Tobias Eisenberger; Mariet W Elting; Joanna A E van Wijk; Detlef Bockenhauer; Neil J Sebire; Søren Rittig; Mogens Vyberg; Troels Ring; Martin Pohl; Lars Pape; Thomas J Neuhaus; Neveen A Soliman Elshakhs; Sarah J Koon; Peter C Harris; Florian Grahammer; Tobias B Huber; E Wolfgang Kuehn; Albrecht Kramer-Zucker; Hanno J Bolz; Ronald Roepman; Sophie Saunier; Gerd Walz; Friedhelm Hildebrandt; Carsten Bergmann; Soeren S Lienkamp Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-06-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Ethan S Sen; Philip Dean; Laura Yarram-Smith; Agnieszka Bierzynska; Geoff Woodward; Chris Buxton; Gemma Dennis; Gavin I Welsh; Maggie Williams; Moin A Saleem Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Daw-Yang Hwang; Gabriel C Dworschak; Stefan Kohl; Pawaree Saisawat; Asaf Vivante; Alina C Hilger; Heiko M Reutter; Neveen A Soliman; Radovan Bogdanovic; Elijah O Kehinde; Velibor Tasic; Friedhelm Hildebrandt Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 10.612