RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Genetic variants that cause rare disorders may remain elusive even after expansive testing, such as exome sequencing. The diagnostic yield of genome sequencing, particularly after a negative evaluation, remains poorly defined. METHODS: We sequenced and analyzed the genomes of families with diverse phenotypes who were suspected to have a rare monogenic disease and for whom genetic testing had not revealed a diagnosis, as well as the genomes of a replication cohort at an independent clinical center. RESULTS: We sequenced the genomes of 822 families (744 in the initial cohort and 78 in the replication cohort) and made a molecular diagnosis in 218 of 744 families (29.3%). Of the 218 families, 61 (28.0%) - 8.2% of families in the initial cohort - had variants that required genome sequencing for identification, including coding variants, intronic variants, small structural variants, copy-neutral inversions, complex rearrangements, and tandem repeat expansions. Most families in which a molecular diagnosis was made after previous nondiagnostic exome sequencing (63.5%) had variants that could be detected by reanalysis of the exome-sequence data (53.4%) or by additional analytic methods, such as copy-number variant calling, to exome-sequence data (10.8%). We obtained similar results in the replication cohort: in 33% of the families in which a molecular diagnosis was made, or 8% of the cohort, genome sequencing was required, which showed the applicability of these findings to both research and clinical environments. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic yield of genome sequencing in a large, diverse research cohort and in a small clinical cohort of persons who had previously undergone genetic testing was approximately 8% and included several types of pathogenic variation that had not previously been detected by means of exome sequencing or other techniques. (Funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute and others.).
Assuntos
Variação Genética , Doenças Raras , Sequenciamento Completo do Genoma , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos de Coortes , Exoma , Sequenciamento do Exoma , Doenças Genéticas Inatas/diagnóstico , Doenças Genéticas Inatas/etnologia , Doenças Genéticas Inatas/genética , Testes Genéticos , Genoma Humano , Fenótipo , Doenças Raras/diagnóstico , Doenças Raras/etnologia , Doenças Raras/genética , Análise de Sequência de DNA , Criança , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , AdultoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Advances in genomic research have facilitated rare disease diagnosis for thousands of individuals. Unfortunately, the benefits of advanced genetic diagnostic technology are not distributed equitably among the population, as has been seen in many other health care contexts. Quantifying and describing inequities in genetic diagnostic yield is inherently challenging due to barriers to both clinical and research genetic testing. We therefore present an implementation protocol developed to expand access to our rare disease genomic research study and to further understand existing inequities. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Rare Genomes Project (RGP) at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard offers research genome sequencing to individuals with rare disease who remain genetically undiagnosed through direct interaction with the individual or family. This presents an opportunity for diagnosis beyond the clinical context, thus eliminating many barriers to access. An initial goal of RGP was to equalize access to genomic sequencing by decoupling testing access from proximity to a major medical center and physician referral. However, study participants over the initial 3 years of this project were predominantly white and well resourced. To further understand and address the lack of diversity within RGP, we developed a novel protocol embedded within the larger RGP study, in an approach informed by an implementation science framework. The aims of this protocol were: (1) to diversify recruitment and enrollment within RGP; (2) understand the process and context of implementing genomic medicine for rare disease diagnosis; and (3) investigate the value of a diagnosis for underserved populations. IMPLICATIONS: Improved understanding of existing inequities and potential strategies to address them are needed to advance equity in rare disease genetic diagnosis and research. In addition to the moral imperative of equity in genomic medicine, this approach is critical in order to fully understand the genomic underpinnings of rare disease.
Assuntos
Testes Genéticos , Doenças Raras , Humanos , Doenças Raras/diagnóstico , Doenças Raras/genética , Atenção à Saúde , Genômica/métodosRESUMO
Background: Causal variants underlying rare disorders may remain elusive even after expansive gene panels or exome sequencing (ES). Clinicians and researchers may then turn to genome sequencing (GS), though the added value of this technique and its optimal use remain poorly defined. We therefore investigated the advantages of GS within a phenotypically diverse cohort. Methods: GS was performed for 744 individuals with rare disease who were genetically undiagnosed. Analysis included review of single nucleotide, indel, structural, and mitochondrial variants. Results: We successfully solved 218/744 (29.3%) cases using GS, with most solves involving established disease genes (157/218, 72.0%). Of all solved cases, 148 (67.9%) had previously had non-diagnostic ES. We systematically evaluated the 218 causal variants for features requiring GS to identify and 61/218 (28.0%) met these criteria, representing 8.2% of the entire cohort. These included small structural variants (13), copy neutral inversions and complex rearrangements (8), tandem repeat expansions (6), deep intronic variants (15), and coding variants that may be more easily found using GS related to uniformity of coverage (19). Conclusion: We describe the diagnostic yield of GS in a large and diverse cohort, illustrating several types of pathogenic variation eluding ES or other techniques. Our results reveal a higher diagnostic yield of GS, supporting the utility of a genome-first approach, with consideration of GS as a secondary or tertiary test when higher-resolution structural variant analysis is needed or there is a strong clinical suspicion for a condition and prior targeted genetic testing has been negative.