Narrowing the Diagnostic Gap: Genomes, Episignatures, Long-Read Sequencing and Health Economic Analyses in an Exome-Negative Intellectual Disability Cohort

Kerith-Rae Dias,Rupendra Shrestha,Deborah Schofield,Carey-Anne Evans,Emily O’Heir,Ying Zhu,Futao Zhang,Krystle Standen,Ben Weisburd,Sarah L. Stenton,Alba Sanchis-Juan,Harrison Brand,Michael E. Talkowski,Alan Ma,Sondy Ghedia,Meredith Wilson,Sarah A. Sandaradura,Janine Smith,Benjamin Kamien,Anne Turner,Madhura Bakshi,Lesley C. Adès,David Mowat,Matthew Regan,George McGillivray,Ravi Savarirayan,Susan M. White,Tiong Yang Tan,Zornitza Stark,Natasha J. Brown,Luis A. Pérez-Jurado,Emma Krzesinski,Matthew F. Hunter,Lauren Akesson,Andrew Paul Fennell,Alison Yeung,Tiffany Boughtwood,Lisa Ewans,Jennifer Kerkhof,Christopher Lucas,Louise Carey,Hugh French,Melissa Rapadas,Igor Stevanovski,Ira W. Deveson,Corrina Cliffe,George Elakis,Edwin P. Kirk,Tracy Dudding-Byth,Janice Fletcher,Rebecca Walsh,Mark A. Corbett,Thessa Kroes,Jozef Gecz,Cliff Meldrum,Simon Cliffe,Meg Wall,Sebastian Lunke,Kathryn North,David J. Amor,Michael Field,Bekim Sadikovic,Michael F. Buckley,Anne O’Donnell-Luria,Tony Roscioli
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101076
IF: 8.864
2024-01-20
Genetics in Medicine
Abstract:PURPOSE Genome sequencing (GS)-specific diagnostic rates in prospective tightly ascertained exome sequencing (ES)-negative intellectual disability (ID) cohorts have not been reported extensively. METHODS ES, GS, epigenetic signatures, and long-read sequencing diagnoses were assessed in 74 trios with at least moderate ID. RESULTS The ES diagnostic yield was 42/74 (57%). GS diagnoses were made in 9/32 (28%) ES-unresolved families. Repeated ES with a contemporary pipeline on the GS-diagnosed families identified 8/9 SNVs/CNVs undetected in older ES, confirming a GS-unique diagnostic rate of 1/32 (3%). Episignatures contributed diagnostic information in 9% with GS-corroboration in 1/32 (3%) and diagnostic clues in 2/32 (6%). A genetic aetiology for ID was detected in 51/74 (69%) families. 12 candidate disease genes were identified. Contemporary ES followed by GS cost US 3,704; 7,062 (95% CI: 8,475) per diagnosis. CONCLUSION Performing GS only in ID trios would be cost equivalent to ES if GS were available at $2,435, about a 60% reduction from current prices. This study demonstrates that first-line GS achieves higher diagnostic rate than contemporary ES but at a higher cost.
genetics & heredity
What problem does this paper attempt to address?