Evaluating Genome Sequencing Strategies: Trio, Singleton, and Standard Testing in Rare Disease Diagnosis

Daniel Kaschta,Christina Post,Franziska Gaass Gaass,Bianca Greiten,Anna-Sophie Liegmann,Rebecca Gembicki,Jelena Pozojevic,Michelle Meyenborg,Janne Wehnert,Katharina Schau-Roemer,Franka Rust,Maj-Britt Salewski,Kristin Grothe,Kirstin Hoff,Nadine Hornig,Juliane Koehler,Vincent Arriens,Caroline Utermann-Thuesing,Kimberly Roberts,Eva Maria Murga Penas,Christine Zuehlke,Monika Kautza-Lucht,Maike Dittmar,Irina Huening,Yorck Hellenbroich,Britta Hanker,Friederike Birgel Birgel,Valerie Berge Berge,Varun K. A. Sreenivasan,Saranya Balachandran,Kristian Haendler,Veronica Yumiceba,Andreas Dalski,Laelia Roesler,Philip Rosenstiel,Andre Franke,Janina Fuss,Britt-Sabina Loescher,Soeren Franzenburg,Dzhoy Papingi,Amelie van der Ven,Birga Hoffmann,Imke Poggenburg,Milad Al-Tawil,Gloria Herrmann,Andreas Recke,Sandra Wilson,Louiza Toutouna,Olaf Hiort,Rixa Woitschach,Nils Margraf,Jasmin Lisfeld,Anna Moellring,Christian Schlein,Theresia Herget,Bettina Gehring,Alexander E. Volk,Hiltrud Muhle,Tobias Baeumer,Lana Harder,Norbert Brueggemann,Alexander Muenchau,Inga Vater,Almuth Caliebe,Inga Nagel,Malte Spielmann
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.20.24319228
2024-12-21
Abstract:Abstract Purpose: Short-read genome sequencing (GS) is a comprehensive genetic testing method capable of detecting multiple variant types. Despite its technical advantages, systemic comparisons of singleton GS (sGS), trio GS (tGS), and exome sequencing-based standard-of-care (SoC) in real-world diagnostics remain limited. Methods: We systematically compared sGS, tGS, and SoC genetic testing in 448 patients with rare diseases in a blinded, prospective study. Three independent teams evaluated the diagnostic yield, variant detection capabilities, and clinical feasibility of GS as a first-tier test. Diagnostic yield was assessed through both prospective and retrospective analyses. Results: In prospective analyses, tGS achieved the highest diagnostic yield for likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants (36.8%) in a newly trained team, outperforming the experienced SoC team (36.0%) and the sGS team (30.4%). Retrospective analyses, accounting for technical variant detection and team experience differences, reported diagnostic yields of 38.6% for SoC, 41.3% for sGS, and 42.2% for tGS. GS excelled in identifying deep intronic, non-coding, and small copy-number variants missed by SoC. Notably, tGS additionally identified three de novo variants classified as likely pathogenic based on recent GeneMatcher collaborations and newly published gene-disease association studies. Conclusion: GS, particularly tGS, demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, supporting its use as a first-tier genetic test. sGS offers a cost-effective alternative, enabling faster, more efficient diagnoses for rare disease patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?