Clinical diagnostic exome sequencing in dystonia: Genetic testing challenges for complex conditions.

Patients with dystonia are particularly appropriate for diagnostic exome sequencing (DES), due to the complex, diverse features and genetic heterogeneity. Personal and family history data were collected from test requisition forms and medical records from 189 patients with reported dystonia and available family members received for clinical DES. Of them, 20.2% patients had a positive genetic finding associated with dystonia. Detection rates for cases with isolated and combined dystonia were 22.4% and 25.0%, respectively. 71.4% of the cohort had co-occurring non-movement-related findings and a detection rate of 24.4%. Patients with childhood-onset dystonia trended toward higher detection rates (31.8%) compared to infancy (23.6%), adolescence (12.5%), and early-adulthood onset (16%). Uncharacterized gene findings were found in 6.7% (8/119) of cases that underwent analysis for genes without an established disease relationship. Patients with intellectual disability/developmental delay, seizures/epilepsy and/or multifocal dystonia were more likely to have positive findings (P = .0093, .0397, .0006). Four (2.1%) patients had findings in two genes, and seven (3.7%) had reclassification after the original report due to new literature, new clinical information or reanalysis request. Pediatric patients were more likely to have positive findings (P = .0180). Our observations show utility of family-based DES in patients with dystonia and illustrate the complexity of testing.

Clinical validity assessment of genes for inclusion in multi-gene panel testing: A systematic approach.

BACKGROUND: Advances in sequencing technology have led to expanded use of multi-gene panel tests (MGPTs) for clinical diagnostics. Well-designed MGPTs must balance increased detection of clinically significant findings while mitigating the increase in variants of uncertain significance (VUS). To maximize clinical utililty, design of such panels should include comprehensive gene vetting using a standardized clinical validity (CV) scoring system. METHODS: To assess the impact of CV-based gene vetting on MGPT results, data from MGPTs for cardiovascular indications were retrospectively analyzed. Using our CV scoring system, genes were categorized as having definitive, strong, moderate, or limited evidence. The rates of reported pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and VUS were then determined for each CV category. RESULTS: Of 106 total genes, 42% had definitive, 17% had strong, 29% had moderate, and 12% had limited CV. The detection rate of variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic was higher for genes with greater CV, while the VUS rate showed an inverse relationship with CV score. No pathogenic or likely pathogenic findings were observed in genes with a limited CV. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the importance of a standardized, evidence-based vetting process to establish CV for genes on MGPTs. Using our proposed system may help to increase the detection rate while mitigating higher VUS rates.