Back

Stagnation in quality of next-generation sequencing assays for the diagnosis of hereditary hematopoietic malignancies

Roloff, G. W.; Shaw, R.; O'Connor, T. E.; Drazer, M. W.

2022-06-16 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2022.06.14.22276069 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceHereditary hematopoietic malignancies (HHMs) are hereditary cancer syndromes that constitute at least 14% of all myeloid malignancies, but genetic assays used to diagnose HHMs have historically been of variable quality. Here, we demonstrate that HHM assays continue to have persistent shortcomings. These diagnostic gaps place patients with HHMs at high risk for missed diagnoses, missed opportunities for cancer screening, and donor-derived leukemias following stem cell transplant. ObjectiveTo determine if the quality of HHM diagnostic assays has improved since 2020, when our group first demonstrated that most HHM diagnostic tests were insufficient for the accurate diagnosis of these syndromes. We hypothesized that the number of genes tested on each HHM assay increased from 2020 to 2022, in keeping with a more comprehensive sequencing approach. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsWe analyzed assays from eight commercial laboratories to determine which HHM-related genes were sequenced by these assays. We compared these assays to panels from 2020 to determine trends in sequencing quality. ResultsThe majority of HHM diagnostic assays did not change over time and are insensitive for the detection of the full spectrum of HHM-related mutations. The majority (75%) of HHM assays do not sequence CHEK2, the gene most frequently mutated in HHMs, and 25% of HHM assays do not sequence DDX41, the second most frequently mutated HHM gene. ConclusionsThe quality of HHM diagnostic assays has stagnated despite the discovery of novel HHM-related genes as well as prior work demonstrating heterogeneity in quality of HHM testing. The majority of commercially available HHM tests remain insufficient for the diagnosis of the full spectrum of HHM-related germline mutations. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSHow have diagnostic assays for hereditary hematopoietic malignancies (HHMs) changed since 2020, when most HHM diagnostic assays were inadequate for the accurate diagnosis of HHMs? FindingsMost HHM assays have significant deficiencies in quality and do not sequence the most relevant HHM-related genes. No meaningful improvements in the quality of HHM diagnostic testing have occurred since 2020. MeaningThe quality of HHM diagnostic testing must be improved to universally include the most common HHM-related germline mutations. This will reduce the risk for false negatives, donor derived leukemias, improve genetic counseling, and improve screening for other HHM-related malignancies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.1%
2
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
British Journal of Haematology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
4
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
5
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
6
Haematologica
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
8
Blood
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.2%
9
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Leukemia
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
14
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
16
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
19
Blood Cancer Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
22
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
26
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
29
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
30
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%