No abstract

No abstract

Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized molecular diagnosis in children with genetic disease over the past decade. However, exome sequencing in the inpatient setting has traditionally been discouraged, in part due to an increased risk of providers failing to retrieve and act upon results, as many patients are discharged before results return. The development of rapid turn‐around‐times (TATs) for genomic testing has begun to shift this paradigm. Rapid exome sequencing (rES) is increasingly being used as a diagnostic tool for critically ill infants with likely genetic disease and presents significant challenges to execute. We implemented a program, entitled the Rapid Inpatient Genomic Testing (RIGhT) project, to identify critically ill children for whom a molecular diagnosis is likely to change inpatient management. Two important goals of the RIGhT project were to provide appropriate genetic counseling, and to develop protocols to ensure efficient test coordination‐ both of which relied heavily on laboratory and clinic‐based genetic counselors (GCs). Here, rES was performed on 27 inpatient trios from October 2016 to August 2018; laboratory and clinical GCs encountered significant challenges in the coordination of this testing. The GCs involved retrospectively reviewed these cases and identified three common challenges encountered during pretest counseling and coordination. The aim of this paper is to define these challenges using illustrative case examples that highlight the importance of including GCs to support rES programs.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread availability of clinical genetic testing, many individuals with suspected genetic conditions do not have a precise diagnosis. This limits their opportunity to take advantage of state-of-the-art treatments. In such instances, testing sometimes reveals difficult-to-evaluate complex structural differences, candidate variants that do not fully explain the phenotype, single pathogenic variants in recessive disorders, or no variants in specific genes of interest. Thus, there is a need for better tools to identify a precise genetic diagnosis in individuals when conventional testing approaches have been exhausted. METHODS: Targeted long-read sequencing (T-LRS) was performed on 33 individuals using Read Until on the Oxford Nanopore platform. This method allowed us to computationally target up to 100 Mbp of sequence per experiment, resulting in an average of 20x coverage of target regions, a 500% increase over background. We analyzed patient DNA for pathogenic substitutions, structural variants, and methylation differences using a single data source. RESULTS: The effectiveness of T-LRS was validated by detecting all genomic aberrations, including single-nucleotide variants, copy number changes, repeat expansions, and methylation differences, previously identified by prior clinical testing. In 6/7 individuals who had complex structural rearrangements, T-LRS enabled more precise resolution of the mutation, which led, in one case, to a change in clinical management. In nine individuals with suspected Mendelian conditions who lacked a precise genetic diagnosis, T-LRS identified pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in five and variants of uncertain significance in two others. CONCLUSIONS: T-LRS can accurately predict pathogenic copy number variants and triplet repeat expansions, resolve complex rearrangements, and identify single-nucleotide variants not detected by other technologies, including short-read sequencing. T-LRS represents an efficient and cost-effective strategy to evaluate high-priority candidate genes and regions or to further evaluate complex clinical testing results. The application of T-LRS will likely increase the diagnostic rate of rare disorders.