• JAMA · Jul 2023

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Rapid Whole-Genomic Sequencing and a Targeted Neonatal Gene Panel in Infants With a Suspected Genetic Disorder.

    • Jill L Maron, Stephen Kingsmore, Bruce D Gelb, Jerry Vockley, Kristen Wigby, Jennifer Bragg, Annemarie Stroustrup, Brenda Poindexter, Kristen Suhrie, Jae H Kim, Thomas Diacovo, Cynthia M Powell, Andrea Trembath, Lucia Guidugli, Katarzyna A Ellsworth, Dallas Reed, Anne Kurfiss, Janis L Breeze, Ludovic Trinquart, and Jonathan M Davis.
    • Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence.
    • JAMA. 2023 Jul 11; 330 (2): 161169161-169.

    ImportanceGenomic testing in infancy guides medical decisions and can improve health outcomes. However, it is unclear whether genomic sequencing or a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test provides comparable molecular diagnostic yields and times to return of results.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of genomic sequencing with those of a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test.Design, Setting, And ParticipantsThe Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) study was a prospective, comparative, multicenter study of 400 hospitalized infants younger than 1 year of age (proband) and their parents, when available, suspected of having a genetic disorder. The study was conducted at 6 US hospitals from June 2019 to November 2021.ExposureEnrolled participants underwent simultaneous testing with genomic sequencing and a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test. Each laboratory performed an independent interpretation of variants guided by knowledge of the patient's phenotype and returned results to the clinical care team. Change in clinical management, therapies offered, and redirection of care was provided to families based on genetic findings from either platform.Main Outcomes And MeasuresPrimary end points were molecular diagnostic yield (participants with ≥1 pathogenic variant or variant of unknown significance), time to return of results, and clinical utility (changes in patient care).ResultsA molecular diagnostic variant was identified in 51% of participants (n = 204; 297 variants identified with 134 being novel). Molecular diagnostic yield of genomic sequencing was 49% (95% CI, 44%-54%) vs 27% (95% CI, 23%-32%) with the targeted gene-sequencing test. Genomic sequencing did not report 19 variants found by the targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test; the targeted gene-sequencing test did not report 164 variants identified by genomic sequencing as diagnostic. Variants unidentified by the targeted genomic-sequencing test included structural variants longer than 1 kilobase (25.1%) and genes excluded from the test (24.6%) (McNemar odds ratio, 8.6 [95% CI, 5.4-14.7]). Variant interpretation by laboratories differed by 43%. Median time to return of results was 6.1 days for genomic sequencing and 4.2 days for the targeted genomic-sequencing test; for urgent cases (n = 107) the time was 3.3 days for genomic sequencing and 4.0 days for the targeted gene-sequencing test. Changes in clinical care affected 19% of participants, and 76% of clinicians viewed genomic testing as useful or very useful in clinical decision-making, irrespective of a diagnosis.Conclusions And RelevanceThe molecular diagnostic yield for genomic sequencing was higher than a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test, but the time to return of routine results was slower. Interlaboratory variant interpretation contributes to differences in molecular diagnostic yield and may have important consequences for clinical management.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.