BACKGROUND Whole-exome sequencing is a diagnostic approach for the identification of molecular defects in patients with suspected genetic disorders. METHODS We developed technical, bioinformatic, interpretive, and validation pipelines for whole-exome sequencing in a certified clinical laboratory to identify sequence variants underlying disease phenotypes in patients. RESULTS We present data on the first 250 probands for whom referring physicians ordered whole-exome sequencing. Patients presented with a range of phenotypes suggesting potential genetic causes. Approximately 80% were children with neurologic pheno-types. Insurance coverage was similar to that for established genetic tests. We identified 86 mutated alleles that were highly likely to be causative in 62 of the 250 patients, achieving a 25% molecular diagnostic rate (95% confidence interval, 20 to 31). Among the 62 patients, 33 had autosomal dominant disease, 16 had auto-somal recessive disease, and 9 had X-linked disease. A total of 4 probands received two nonoverlapping molecular diagnoses, which potentially challenged the clinical diagnosis that had been made on the basis of history and physical examination. A total of 83% of the autosomal dominant mutant alleles and 40% of the X-linked mutant alleles occurred de novo. Recurrent clinical phenotypes occurred in patients with mutations that were highly likely to be causative in the same genes and in different genes responsible for genetically heterogeneous disorders. CONCLUSIONS Whole-exome sequencing identified the underlying genetic defect in 25% of consecutive patients referred for evaluation of a possible genetic condition. (Funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute.)

No abstract

Recombinant alpha-galactosidase A replacement therapy cleared microvascular endothelial deposits of globotriaosylceramide from the kidneys, heart, and skin in patients with Fabry's disease, reversing the pathogenesis of the chief clinical manifestations of this disease.

Background Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis. Methods Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central karyotyping laboratory. Each sample was split in two; standard karyotyping was performed on one portion and the other was sent to one of four laboratories for chromosomal microarray. Results We enrolled a total of 4406 women. Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), abnormal result on Down’s syndrome screening (18.8%), structural anomalies on ultrasonography (25.2%), and other indications (9.4%). In 4340 (98.8%) of the fetal samples, microarray analysis was successful; 87.9% of samples could be used without tissue culture. Microarray analysis of the 4282 nonmosaic samples identified all the aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements identified on karyotyping but did not identify balanced translocations and fetal triploidy. In samples with a normal karyotype, microarray analysis revealed clinically relevant deletions or duplications in 6.0% with a structural anomaly and in 1.7% of those whose indications were advanced maternal age or positive screening results. Conclusions In the context of prenatal diagnostic testing, chromosomal microarray analysis identified additional, clinically significant cytogenetic information as compared with karyotyping and was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements but did not identify balanced translocations and triploidies. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01279733.)

IMPORTANCE Clinical whole-exome sequencing is increasingly used for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected genetic disorders. OBJECTIVE To perform clinical whole-exome sequencing and report (1) the rate of molecular diagnosis among phenotypic groups, (2) the spectrum of genetic alterations contributing to disease, and (3) the prevalence of medically actionable incidental findings such as FBN1 mutations causing Marfan syndrome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Observational study of 2000 consecutive patients with clinical whole-exome sequencing analyzed between June 2012 and August 2014. Whole-exome sequencing tests were performed at a clinical genetics laboratory in the United States. Results were reported by clinical molecular geneticists certified by the American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Tests were ordered by the patient’s physician. The patients were primarily pediatric (1756 [88%]; mean age, 6 years; 888 females [44%], 1101 males [55%], and 11 fetuses [1% gender unknown]), demonstrating diverse clinical manifestations most often including nervous system dysfunction such as developmental delay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Whole-exome sequencing diagnosis rate overall and by phenotypic category, mode of inheritance, spectrum of genetic events, and reporting of incidental findings. RESULTS A molecular diagnosis was reported for 504 patients (25.2%) with 58% of the diagnostic mutations not previously reported. Molecular diagnosis rates for each phenotypic category were 143/526 (27.2%; 95% CI, 23.5%–31.2%) for the neurological group, 282/1147 (24.6%; 95% CI, 22.1%–27.2%) for the neurological plus other organ systems group, 30/83 (36.1%; 95% CI, 26.1%–47.5%) for the specific neurological group, and 49/244 (20.1%; 95% CI, 15.6%–25.8%) for the nonneurological group. The Mendelian disease patterns of the 527 molecular diagnoses included 280 (53.1%) autosomal dominant, 181 (34.3%) autosomal recessive (including 5 with uniparental disomy), 65 (12.3%) X-linked, and 1 (0.2%) mitochondrial. Of 504 patients with a molecular diagnosis, 23 (4.6%) had blended phenotypes resulting from 2 single gene defects. About 30% of the positive cases harbored mutations in disease genes reported since 2011. There were 95 medically actionable incidental findings in genes unrelated to the phenotype but with immediate implications for management in 92 patients (4.6%), including 59 patients (3%) with mutations in genes recommended for reporting by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Whole-exome sequencing provided a potential molecular diagnosis for 25% of a large cohort of patients referred for evaluation of suspected genetic conditions, including detection of rare genetic events and new mutations contributing to disease. The yield of whole-exome sequencing may offer advantages over traditional molecular diagnostic approaches in certain patients.

BACKGROUND Whole-exome sequencing can provide insight into the relationship between observed clinical phenotypes and underlying genotypes. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from a series of 7374 consecutive unrelated patients who had been referred to a clinical diagnostic laboratory for whole-exome sequencing; our goal was to determine the frequency and clinical characteristics of patients for whom more than one molecular diagnosis was reported. The phenotypic similarity between molecularly diagnosed pairs of diseases was calculated with the use of terms from the Human Phenotype Ontology. RESULTS A molecular diagnosis was rendered for 2076 of 7374 patients (28.2%); among these patients, 101 (4.9%) had diagnoses that involved two or more disease loci. We also analyzed parental samples, when available, and found that de novo variants accounted for 67.8% (61 of 90) of pathogenic variants in autosomal dominant disease genes and 51.7% (15 of 29) of pathogenic variants in X-linked disease genes; both variants were de novo in 44.7% (17 of 38) of patients with two monoallelic variants. Causal copy-number variants were found in 12 patients (11.9%) with multiple diagnoses. Phenotypic similarity scores were significantly lower among patients in whom the phenotype resulted from two distinct mendelian disorders that affected different organ systems (50 patients) than among patients with disorders that had overlapping phenotypic features (30 patients) (median score, 0.21 vs. 0.36; P = 1.77×10−7). CONCLUSIONS In our study, we found multiple molecular diagnoses in 4.9% of cases in which whole-exome sequencing was informative. Our results show that structured clinical ontologies can be used to determine the degree of overlap between two mendelian diseases in the same patient; the diseases can be distinct or overlapping. Distinct disease phenotypes affect different organ systems, whereas overlapping disease phenotypes are more likely to be caused by two genes encoding proteins that interact within the same pathway. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation.)

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of recombinant human iduronate-2-sulfatase (idursulfase) in the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis II. Methods: Ninety-six mucopolysaccharidosis II patients between 5 and 31 years of age were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to placebo infusions, weekly idursulfase (0.5 mg/kg) infusions or every-other-week infusions of idursulfase (0.5 mg/kg).Efficacy was evaluated using a composite endpoint consisting of distance walked in 6 minutes and the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity based on the sum of the ranks of change from baseline. Results: Patients in the weekly and every-other-week idursulfase groups exhibited significant improvement in the composite endpoint compared to placebo (P ϭ 0.0049 for weekly and P ϭ 0.0416 for every-other-week) after one year. The weekly dosing group experienced a 37-m increase in the 6-minute-walk distance (P ϭ 0.013), a 2.7% increase in percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (P ϭ 0.065), and a 160 mL increase in absolute forced vital capacity (P ϭ 0.001) compared to placebo group at 53 weeks. Idursulfase was generally well tolerated, but infusion reactions did occur.

involves karyotyping, whereas in the Netherlands, patients who undergo amniocentesis have a more limited assessment only for trisomies 13, 18, and 21 and the sex chromosomes; thus, the tradeoff is a bit different.In addition, cfDNA is provided as a screening test for trisomies 13, 18, and 21, not just for Down syndrome. However, the performance characteristics of cfDNA for trisomies 13 and 18 are not as favorable as for T21, with a higher rate of falsenegative and false-positive results. In addition, a percentage of patients-somewhere between 1.5% and 8%-fail to obtain a result, usually because of insufficient fetal DNA. Such "low fetal fraction" is associated with obesity, which is a significant problem affecting a high percentage of reproductive-aged women in the United States. It is estimated that 20% to 50% of cfDNA tests fail to provide adequate fetal DNA in obese women. In addition, low fetal fraction is also associated with aneuploidy; therefore, women with cfDNA test failure should be considered high risk and offered follow-up with diagnostic testing (as well as a second attempt at cfDNA). When these potential outcomes are all considered, the performance characteristics of cfDNA versus traditional screening are not as clearly superior.Like the authors of this abstracted paper, several other authors and experts (Prenat Diagn 2013;33 (7):636-642) have suggested a contingent approach, using multiple marker screening as an initial screening tool, and then offering NIPT to intermediate-risk patients and either cfDNA or invasive testing to the highest-risk patients. Before completely changing the current standard of care, we need to understand this tradeoff. These authors consider comparative costs, but do not really provide incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, which are the best way to compare these strategies. While cfDNA is a better test if we are looking at a very precise test for a single disorder, only in patients in whom the test is successful at providing a result current screening may be preferable if we are looking to screen the entire population for a broad range of birth defects. Cost utility analyses, conducted by independent investigators and considering all important outcomes, are clearly needed before our approach completely changes. -MEN)