Panel-Based Next-Generation Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Cholestatic Genetic Liver Diseases: Clinical Utility and Challenges.

OBJECTIVE: To test the application of a target enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) jaundice panel in genetic diagnosis of pediatric liver diseases. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a capture-based target enrichment NGS jaundice panel containing 42 known disease-causing genes associated with jaundice or cholestasis and 10 pathway-related genes. During 2015-2017, 102 pediatric patients with various forms of cholestasis or idiopathic liver diseases were tested, including patients with initial diagnosis of cholestasis in infancy, progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis, syndromic cholestasis, Wilson disease, and others. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients, 137 mutations/variants in 44 different genes were identified in 84 patients. The genetic disease diagnosis rate was 33 of 102 (32.4%). A total of 79 of 102 (77.5%) of patients had at least 1 heterozygous genetic variation. Those with progressive intrahepatic cholestasis or syndromic cholestasis in infancy had a diagnostic rate of 62.5%. Disease-causing mutations, including ATP8B1, ABCB11, ABCB4, ABCC2, TJP2, NR1H4 (FXR), JAG1, AKR1D1, CYP7B1, PKHD1, ATP7B, and SLC25A13, were identified. Nine patients had unpredicted genetic diagnosis with atypical phenotype or novel mutations in the investigational genes. We propose an NGS diagnosis classification categorizing patients into high (n = 24), moderate (n = 9), or weak (n = 25) levels of genotype-phenotype correlations to facilitate patient management. CONCLUSIONS: This panel enabled high-throughput detection of genetic variants and disease diagnosis in patients with a long list of candidate causative genes. A NGS report with diagnosis classification may aid clinicians in data interpretation and patient management.

A targeted next-generation sequencing in the molecular risk stratification of adult acute myeloid leukemia: implications for clinical practice.

Conventional cytogenetics can categorize patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) into favorable, intermediate, and unfavorable-risk groups; however, patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics represent the major population with variable outcomes. Because molecular profiling can assist with AML prognosis and next-generation sequencing allows simultaneous sequencing of many target genes, we analyzed 260 genes in 112 patients with de novo AML who received standard treatment. Multivariate analysis showed that karyotypes and mutation status of TET2, PHF6, KIT, and NPM1mutation /FLT3- internal tandem duplication (ITD)negative were independent prognostic factors for the entire cohort. Among patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, patients with mutations in CEBPAdouble mutation , IDH2, and NPM1 in the absence of FLT3-ITD were associated with improved Overall survival (OS), similar to those with favorable-risk cytogenetics; patients with mutations in TET2, RUNX1, ASXL1, and DNMT3A were associated with reduced OS, similar to those with unfavorable-risk cytogenetics. We concluded that integration of cytogenetic and molecular profiling improves prognostic stratification of patients into three groups with more distinct prognoses (P < 0.001) and significantly reduces the number of patients classified as intermediate risk. In addition, our study demonstrates that next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multi-gene sequencing is clinically applicable in establishing an accurate risk stratification system for guiding therapeutic decisions.

Multiple gene sequencing for risk assessment in patients with early-onset or familial breast cancer.

Since BRCA mutations are only responsible for 10-20% of cases of breast cancer in patients with early-onset or a family history and since next-generation sequencing technology allows the simultaneous sequencing of a large number of target genes, testing for multiple cancer-predisposing genes is now being considered, but its significance in clinical practice remains unclear. We then developed a sequencing panel containing 68 genes that had cancer risk association for patients with early-onset or familial breast cancer. A total of 133 patients were enrolled and 30 (22.6%) were found to carry germline deleterious mutations, 9 in BRCA1, 11 in BRCA2, 2 in RAD50, 2 in TP53 and one each in ATM, BRIP1, FANCI, MSH2, MUTYH, and RAD51C. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) was associated with the highest mutation rate (45.5%, p = 0.025). Seven of the 9 BRCA1 mutations and the single FANCI mutation were in the TNBC group; 9 of the 11 BRCA2, 1 of the 2 RAD50 as well as BRIP1, MSH2, MUTYH, and RAD51C mutations were in the hormone receptor (HR)(+)Her2(-) group, and the other RAD50, ATM, and TP53 mutations were in the HR(+)Her2(+) group. Mutation carriers were considered as high-risk to develop malignancy and advised to receive cancer screening. Screening protocols of non-BRCA genes were based on their biologic functions; for example, patients carrying RAD51C mutation received a screening protocol similar to that for BRCA, since BRCA and RAD51C are both involved in homologous recombination. In conclusion, we consider that multiple gene sequencing in cancer risk assessment is clinically valuable.