4.6 Article

Whole-exome sequencing reanalysis at 12 months boosts diagnosis and is cost-effective when applied early in Mendelian disorders

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages 1564-1574

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2018.39

Keywords

cost-effectiveness; diagnosis; exome; genomics; Mendelian

Funding

  1. Kinghorn Foundation
  2. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  3. Cancer Institute NSW [13/ECF/1-46]
  4. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1117394, APP1045465]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has revolutionized Mendelian diagnostics, however, there is no consensus on the timing of data review in undiagnosed individuals and only preliminary data on the cost-effectiveness of this technology. We aimed to assess the utility of WES data reanalysis for diagnosis in Mendelian disorders and to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this technology compared with a traditional diagnostic pathway. Methods: WES was applied to a cohort of 54 patients from 37 families with a variety of Mendelian disorders to identify the genetic etiology. Reanalysis was performed after 12 months with an improved WES diagnostic pipeline. A comparison was made between costs of a modeled WES pathway and a traditional diagnostic pathway in a cohort with intellectual disability (ID). Results: Reanalysis of WES data at 12 months improved diagnostic success from 30 to 41% due to interim publication of disease genes, expanded phenotype data from referrer, and an improved bioinformatics pipeline. Cost analysis on the ID cohort showed average cost savings of US$586 (AU$782) for each additional diagnosis. Conclusion: Early application of WES in Mendelian disorders is cost-effective and reanalysis of an undiagnosed individual at a 12-month time point increases total diagnoses by 11%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available