A nationwide prospective randomized trial for diagnosing developmental disorders demonstrates genome sequencing outperforms standard of care.
Geysens, M.; Souche, E.; Baroni, M. C.; Benoit, V.; Beyltjens, T.; Bossuyt, W.; Bours, V.; Crabbe, M.; Croes, D.; De Smet, M.; Desir, J.; Devriendt, K.; Dheedene, A.; Dimitrov, B. I.; Janssens, K.; Kumps, C.; LUMAKA, A.; Menten, B.; Meuwissen, M.; Monestier, O.; Mortier, G.; Olsen, C.; Palmeira, L.; Peeters, H.; Polsler, L.; Revencu, N.; Roland, D.; Soblet, J.; Sznajer, Y.; Taziaux, S.; Van Esch, H.; Vandeweyer, G.; Vantroys, E.; Vilain, C.; Wiame, E.; Van Den Bogaert, K.; Vermeesch, j.
Show abstract
Backgroundexome (ES) or genome (GS) sequencing are recommended as first- or second-tier molecular tests for patients with developmental disorders (DD), but the clinical utility of GS continues to be debated. MethodsThis prospective randomized trial involving all Belgian Human Genetics centers compared the standard of care (SoC) - combining ES and chromosomal microarray analysis or shallow GS - with GS for 567 individuals with unexplained DD. ResultsThe diagnostic yield of GS was 39.8% (113/284) vs 30% for SoC (85/283) (p=0.015), mainly due to an increased detection of single nucleotide variants and indels (+8.7%). GS also enabled the detection of three non-coding (potential) pathogenic variants. Diagnostic yield was higher for females (45.5%, 97/213) compared to males (28.5%, 101/354) (p<0.001). De novo variants were found for 23.6% of patients. Analysis of inherited variants in genes associated with autosomal dominant phenotypes contributed more to the diagnostic yield (3.9%) than X-linked variants (1.9%), and to a similar extent as autosomal recessive variants (4.1%). ConclusionThis nationwide study indicates GS outperforms SoC for the diagnosis of patients with DD in a decentralized hospital setting and well-characterized cohort. The results also highlight the importance of evaluating autosomal dominant inherited variants in genomics analyses for DD.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- IGenomic answers for children: Dynamic analyses of >1000 pediatric rare disease genomes 96%
- Poison exon annotations improve the yield of clinically relevant variants in genomic diagnostic testing 96%
- The Importance of Automation in Genetic Diagnosis: Lessons from Analyzing an Inherited Retinal Degeneration Cohort with the Mendelian Analysis Toolkit (MATK) 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genome Sequencing and Comprehensive Rare Variant Analysis of 465 Families with Neurodevelopmental Disorders 96%
- Exome copy number variant detection, analysis and classification in a large cohort of families with undiagnosed rare genetic disease 96%
- Chromosome X-Wide Common Variant Association Study (XWAS) in Autism Spectrum Disorder 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comprehensive reanalysis for CNVs in ES data from unsolved rare disease cases results in new diagnoses 97%
- Biallelic truncation variants in ATP9A are associated with a novel autosomal recessive neurodevelopmental disorder 95%
- Discordance between a deep learning model and clinical-grade variant pathogenicity classification in a rare disease cohort 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic Diagnosis of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Type 1 Using Rare Variant Linkage Analysis and Long Read Genome Sequencing 94%
- Detection and characterisation of copy number variants from exome sequencing in the DDD study 93%
- 3-hour genome sequencing and targeted analysis to rapidly assess genetic risk 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.