Genomes in clinical care.
Journal
NPJ genomic medicine
ISSN: 2056-7944
Titre abrégé: NPJ Genom Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685193
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2024
14 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
01
09
2023
accepted:
07
02
2024
medline:
15
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the era of precision medicine, genome sequencing (GS) has become more affordable and the importance of genomics and multi-omics in clinical care is increasingly being recognized. However, how to scale and effectively implement GS on an institutional level remains a challenge for many. Here, we present Genome First and Ge-Med, two clinical implementation studies focused on identifying the key pillars and processes that are required to make routine GS and predictive genomics a reality in the clinical setting. We describe our experience and lessons learned for a variety of topics including test logistics, patient care processes, data reporting, and infrastructure. Our model of providing clinical care and comprehensive genomic analysis from a single source may be used by other centers with a similar structure to facilitate the implementation of omics-based personalized health concepts in medicine.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38485733
doi: 10.1038/s41525-024-00402-2
pii: 10.1038/s41525-024-00402-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
20Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Gross, A. M. et al. Copy-number variants in clinical genome sequencing: deployment and interpretation for rare and undiagnosed disease. Genet. Med. 21, 1121–30 (2019).
pubmed: 30293986
doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0295-y
Marshall, C. R. et al. Best practices for the analytical validation of clinical whole-genome sequencing intended for the diagnosis of germline disease. Genome Med. 5, 47 (2020).
Witt, D. et al. Genome sequencing identifies complex structural MLH1 variant in unsolved Lynch syndrome. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 11, e2151 (2023).
doi: 10.1002/mgg3.2151
Burdick, K. J. et al. Limitations of exome sequencing in detecting rare and undiagnosed diseases. Am. J. Med. Genet. 182, 1400–1406 (2020).
pubmed: 32190976
doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61558
Fleszar, Z. et al. Short-read genome sequencing allows “en route” diagnosis of patients with atypical Friedreich ataxia. J. Neurol. 270, 4112–7 (2023).
pubmed: 37119371
pmcid: 10345027
doi: 10.1007/s00415-023-11745-8
Dominik, N. et al. Normal and pathogenic variation of RFC1 repeat expansions: implications for clinical diagnosis. Brain, published ahead of print; https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad240 (2023).
Palmquist, R. et al. Evaluating use of changing technologies for rapid next-generation sequencing in pediatrics. Pediatr. Res. 92, 1364–9 (2022).
pubmed: 35115709
pmcid: 10024604
doi: 10.1038/s41390-022-01965-5
Smedley, D. et al. 100,000 genomes pilot on rare-disease diagnosis in health care – preliminary report. N. Engl. J. Med. 385, 1868–80 (2021).
pubmed: 34758253
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035790
Dimmock, D. et al. Project Baby Bear: rapid precision care incorporating rWGS in 5 California children’s hospitals demonstrates improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 108, 1231–8 (2021).
pubmed: 34089648
pmcid: 8322922
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.05.008
McKnight, D. et al. Genetic testing to inform epilepsy treatment management from an international study of clinical practice. JAMA Neurol. 79, 1267–76 (2022).
pubmed: 36315135
pmcid: 9623482
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.3651
Chung, C. C. Y. et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic and clinical utility of exome and genome sequencing in pediatric and adult patients with rare diseases across diverse populations. Genet. Med. 25, 100896 (2023).
pubmed: 37191093
doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100896
Schroeder, Ch. et al. Clinical trio genome sequencing facilitates the interpretation of variants in cancer predisposition genes in paediatric tumour patients. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 31, 1139–1146 (2023).
pubmed: 37507557
pmcid: 10545765
doi: 10.1038/s41431-023-01423-8
Weisschuh, N. Diagnostic genome sequencing improves diagnostic yield: a prospective single center study in 1,000 patients with inherited eye diseases. J. Med. Genet. 61, 186–195 (2024).
pubmed: 37734845
doi: 10.1136/jmg-2023-109470
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
pubmed: 26978244
pmcid: 4792175
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
eMERGE Clinical Annotation Working Group. Frequency of genomic secondary findings among 21,915 eMERGE network participants. Genet. Med. 9, 1470–7 (2020).
ACMG Board of Directors. The use of ACMG secondary findings recommendations for general population screening: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet. Med. 21, 1467–8 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0502-5
Miller, D. T. et al. ACMG v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 23, 1381–90 (2021).
pubmed: 34012068
doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01172-3
Jensson, B. O. et al. Actionable genotypes and their association with life span in Iceland. N. Engl. J. Med. 389, 1741–52 (2023).
pubmed: 37937776
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2300792
Ge, T. et al. Development and validation of a trans-ancestry polygenic risk score for type 2 diabetes in diverse populations. Genome Med. 14, 70 (2022).
pubmed: 35765100
pmcid: 9241245
doi: 10.1186/s13073-022-01074-2
Natarajan, P. et al. Deep-coverage whole genome sequences and blood lipids among 16,324 individuals. Nat. Commun. 9, 3391 (2018).
pubmed: 30140000
pmcid: 6107638
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05747-8
Lewis, C. M. & Vassos, E. Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments. Genome Med. 12, 44 (2020).
pubmed: 32423490
pmcid: 7236300
doi: 10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5
Lee, A. et al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet. Med. 21, 1708–18 (2019).
pubmed: 30643217
pmcid: 6687499
doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9
Carver, T. et al. CanRisk tool-A web interface for the prediction of breast and ovarian cancer risk and the likelihood of carrying genetic pathogenic variants. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 30, 469–473 (2021).
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1319
Archer, S. et al. Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study. PLoS ONE 15, e0229999 (2020).
pubmed: 32142536
pmcid: 7059924
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229999
Mavaddat, N. et al. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 21–34 (2019).
pubmed: 30554720
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002
Van der Wouden, C. et al. Implementing pharmacogenomics in Europe: Design and Implementation Strategy of the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 101, 341–58 (2017).
pubmed: 28027596
doi: 10.1002/cpt.602
Kraft, F. et al. Quality assurance within the context of genome diagnostics (A German perspective). Med. Genet. 35, 91–104 (2023).
Frésard, L. et al. Identification of rare-disease genes using blood transcriptome sequencing and large control cohorts. Nat. Med. 6, 911–919 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0457-8
Kremer, L. S. et al. Genetic diagnosis of Mendelian disorders via RNA sequencing. Nat. Commun. 12, 15824 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms15824
Yépez, V. A. et al. Clinical implementation of RNA sequencing for Mendelian disease diagnostics. Genome Med. 14, 38 (2022).
pubmed: 35379322
pmcid: 8981716
doi: 10.1186/s13073-022-01019-9
Lee, H. et al. Diagnostic utility of transcriptome sequencing for rare Mendelian diseases. Genet. Med. 22, 490–499 (2020).
pubmed: 31607746
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0672-1
Gonorazky, H. D. et al. Expanding the boundaries of RNA sequencing as a diagnostic tool for rare Mendelian disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 1007 (2019).
pubmed: 31051109
pmcid: 6507041
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.04.004
Zhao, S. et al. Evaluation of two main RNA-seq approaches for gene quantification in clinical RNA sequencing: polyA+ selection versus rRNA depletion. Sci. Rep. 8, 4781 (2018).
pubmed: 29556074
pmcid: 5859127
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23226-4
Zhao, W. et al. Comparison of RNA-Seq by poly (A) capture, ribosomal RNA depletion, and DNA microarray for expression profiling. BMC Genom. 15, 419 (2014).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-419
Harrington, C. A. et al. RNA-Seq of human whole blood: Evaluation of globin RNA depletion on Ribo-Zero library method. Sci. Rep. 10, 6271 (2020).
pubmed: 32286338
pmcid: 7156519
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62801-6
Jang, J. S. et al. Comparative evaluation for the globin gene depletion methods for mRNA sequencing using the whole blood-derived total RNAs. BMC Genom. 21, 890 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-07304-4
Bouchard-Mercier, A. et al. Associations between dietary patterns and gene expression profiles of healthy men and women: a cross-sectional study. Nutr. J. 12, 24 (2013).
pubmed: 23398686
pmcid: 3598224
doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-12-24
Cliff, J. M. et al. Distinct phases of blood gene expression pattern through tuberculosis treatment reflect modulation of the humoral immune response. J. Infect. Dis. 207, 18–29 (2013).
pubmed: 22872737
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis499
Rode, M. et al. Impact of medication on blood transcriptome reveals off-target regulations of beta-blockers. PLoS One 17, e0266897 (2022).
pubmed: 35446883
pmcid: 9022833
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266897
Meritxell Oliva, M. et al. The impact of sex on gene expression across human tissues. Science 369, eaba3066 (2020).
pubmed: 32913072
pmcid: 8136152
doi: 10.1126/science.aba3066
The GTEx Consortium. The GTEx consortium atlas of genetic regulatory effects across human tissues. Science 369, 1318–30 (2020).
pmcid: 7737656
doi: 10.1126/science.aaz1776
Yamamoto, R. et al. Tissue-specific impacts of aging and genetics on gene expression patterns in humans. Nat. Commun. 13, 5803 (2022).
pubmed: 36192477
pmcid: 9530233
doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33509-0
Danis, D. et al. Interpretable prioritization of splice variants in diagnostic next-generation sequencing. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 108, 1564–77 (2021).
pubmed: 34289339
pmcid: 8456162
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.06.014
Dekker, J. et al. Web-accessible application for identifying pathogenic transcripts with RNA-seq: Increased sensitivity in diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 110, 251–72 (2023).
pubmed: 36669495
pmcid: 9943747
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.12.015
Anderson, D., Baynam, G., Blackwellm, J. M. & Lassmann, T. Personalized analytics for rare disease diagnostics. Nat. Commun. 10, 5274 (2019).
pubmed: 31754101
pmcid: 6872807
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13345-5
Colin, E. et al. OMIXCARE: OMICS technologies solved about 33% of the patients with heterogeneous rare neuro-developmental disorders and negative exome sequencing results and identified 13% additional candidate variants. Front. Cell. Dev. Biol. 10, 1021785 (2022).
pubmed: 36393831
pmcid: 9650323
doi: 10.3389/fcell.2022.1021785
Bosio, M. et al. eDIVA-classification and prioritization of pathogenic variants for clinical diagnostics. Hum. Mutat. 40, 865–78 (2019).
pubmed: 31026367
pmcid: 6767450
doi: 10.1002/humu.23772
Boudellioua, I. et al. DeepPVP: phenotype-based prioritization of causative variants using deep learning. BMC Bioinforma. 20, 65 (2019).
doi: 10.1186/s12859-019-2633-8
De La Vega, F. M. et al. Artificial intelligence enables comprehensive genome interpretation and nomination of candidate diagnoses for rare genetic diseases. Genome Med. 13, 153 (2021).
pubmed: 34645491
doi: 10.1186/s13073-021-00965-0
Woof, V. G. et al. Introducing a low-risk breast screening pathway into the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from healthcare professionals who are delivering risk-stratified screening. Women’s Health (Lond.). 17, 17455065211009746 (2021).
pmcid: 8060757
Green, R. C. et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15, 565–74 (2013).
pubmed: 23788249
pmcid: 3727274
doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73
Gallagher, S. et al. Comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment for CHEK2 and ATM pathogenic variant carriers incorporating a polygenic risk score and the Tyrer-Cuzick Model. JCO Precis. Oncol. 5. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00484 (2021).
Borde, J. et al. Performance of breast cancer polygenic risk scores in 760 female CHEK2 germline mutation carriers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 113, 893–899 (2021).
pubmed: 33372680
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa203
Borde, J. et al. Polygenic risk scores indicate extreme ages at onset of breast cancer in female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers. BMC Cancer 22, 706 (2022).
pubmed: 35761208
pmcid: 9238030
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09780-1
Barnes, D. R. et al. Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Genet. Med. 22, 1653–1666 (2020).
pubmed: 32665703
pmcid: 7521995
doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0862-x
Lakeman, I. M. M. et al. The predictive ability of the 313 variant-based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant. Genet. Med. 23, 1726–1737 (2021).
pubmed: 34113011
pmcid: 8460445
doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01198-7
Giardiello, D. et al. PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients. Breast Cancer Res. 24, 69 (2022).
pubmed: 36271417
pmcid: 9585761
doi: 10.1186/s13058-022-01567-3
Logsdon, G. A., Vollger, M. R. & Eichler, E. E. Long-read human genome sequencing and its applications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 597–614 (2020).
pubmed: 32504078
pmcid: 7877196
doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0236-x
Marx, V. Method of the year: long-read sequencing. Nat. Methods 20, 6–11 (2023).
pubmed: 36635542
doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01730-w
Kovaka, S., Ou, S., Jenike, K. M. & Schatz, M. C. Approaching complete genomes, transcriptomes and epi-omes with accurate long-read sequencing. Nat. Methods 20, 12–6 (2023).
pubmed: 36635537
pmcid: 10068675
doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01716-8
Lucas, M. C. & Novoa, E. M. Long-read sequencing in the era of epigenomics and epitranscriptomics. Nat. Methods 20, 25–9 (2023).
pubmed: 36635539
doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01724-8