A retrospective review of multiple findings in diagnostic exome sequencing: half are distinct and half are overlapping diagnoses.
Diagnosis, Differential
Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures
/ statistics & numerical data
Exome
/ genetics
Female
Genetic Testing
/ methods
Genomics
/ methods
Genotype
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
/ methods
Humans
Male
Mutation
/ genetics
Phenotype
Retrospective Studies
Sequence Analysis, DNA
/ methods
Exome Sequencing
/ methods
comorbidity
diagnostic exome sequencing
distinct vs. overlapping phenotypes
multilocus genomic variation
multiple genetic diseases
Journal
Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
ISSN: 1530-0366
Titre abrégé: Genet Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9815831
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
13
08
2018
accepted:
25
02
2019
pubmed:
22
3
2019
medline:
18
3
2020
entrez:
22
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We evaluated clinical and genetic features enriched in patients with multiple Mendelian conditions to determine which patients are more likely to have multiple potentially relevant genetic findings (MPRF). Results of the first 7698 patients who underwent exome sequencing at Ambry Genetics were reviewed. Clinical and genetic features were examined and degree of phenotypic overlap between the genetic diagnoses was evaluated. Among patients referred for exome sequencing, 2% had MPRF. MPRF were more common in patients from consanguineous families and patients with greater clinical complexity. The difference in average number of organ systems affected is small: 4.3 (multiple findings) vs. 3.9 (single finding) and may not be distinguished in clinic. Patients with multiple genetic diagnoses had a slightly higher number of organ systems affected than patients with single genetic diagnoses, largely because the comorbid conditions affected overlapping organ systems. Exome testing may be beneficial for all cases with multiple organ systems affected. The identification of multiple relevant genetic findings in 2% of exome patients highlights the utility of a comprehensive molecular workup and updated interpretation of existing genomic data; a single definitive molecular diagnosis from analysis of a limited number of genes may not be the end of a diagnostic odyssey.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30894705
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0477-2
pii: S1098-3600(21)04483-X
pmc: PMC6774997
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2199-2207Références
Int J Breast Cancer. 2016;2016:2469523
pubmed: 27822389
Am J Hum Genet. 2014 Mar 6;94(3):415-25
pubmed: 24581740
Am J Hum Genet. 2015 Aug 6;97(2):199-215
pubmed: 26166479
Genet Med. 2016 Jul;18(7):696-704
pubmed: 26633542
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 5;376(1):21-31
pubmed: 27959697
Hum Mutat. 2017 May;38(5):517-523
pubmed: 28229513
Genet Med. 2017 Feb;19(2):224-235
pubmed: 27513193
Clin Genet. 2016 Mar;89(3):275-84
pubmed: 26283276
Hum Mutat. 2017 May;38(5):600-608
pubmed: 28106320
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 17;369(16):1502-11
pubmed: 24088041
Genet Med. 2015 Jul;17(7):578-86
pubmed: 25356970
Genet Med. 2014 Nov;16(11):830-7
pubmed: 24763289
Genet Med. 2017 Feb;19(2):209-214
pubmed: 27441994
Am J Med Genet A. 2017 Sep;173(9):2451-2455
pubmed: 28631899
Genome Med. 2017 Nov 27;9(1):101
pubmed: 29179772
Genet Med. 2018 Dec;20(12):1528-1537
pubmed: 29790871
Genet Med. 2014 Sep;16(9):717-9
pubmed: 24525916
JAMA. 2014 Nov 12;312(18):1870-9
pubmed: 25326635
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Feb;25(2):176-182
pubmed: 27848944
Nature. 2017 Feb 23;542(7642):433-438
pubmed: 28135719
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
Clin Genet. 2017 Sep;92(3):281-289
pubmed: 28170084
Hum Genet. 2015 Sep;134(9):967-80
pubmed: 26077850
Genet Med. 2014 May;16(5):395-9
pubmed: 24113345
JAMA. 2014 Nov 12;312(18):1880-7
pubmed: 25326637
Nat Rev Genet. 2012 Jul 18;13(8):565-75
pubmed: 22805709
J Hum Genet. 2016 Feb;61(2):173-5
pubmed: 26490185
J Clin Invest. 2016 Feb;126(2):762-78
pubmed: 26752647