A meta-analysis of diagnostic yield and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing in pediatric rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases

IF 6.2 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genetics in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1016/j.gim.2025.101398
Rajshree Pandey , Noemi Fluetsch Brennan , Kalliopi Trachana , Sarah Katsandres , Olaf Bodamer , John Belmont , David L. Veenstra , Siyang Peng
{"title":"A meta-analysis of diagnostic yield and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing in pediatric rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases","authors":"Rajshree Pandey ,&nbsp;Noemi Fluetsch Brennan ,&nbsp;Kalliopi Trachana ,&nbsp;Sarah Katsandres ,&nbsp;Olaf Bodamer ,&nbsp;John Belmont ,&nbsp;David L. Veenstra ,&nbsp;Siyang Peng","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2025.101398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To systematically evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES; genome-wide sequencing [GWS]) in pediatric patients with rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published between 2011 and 2023. To address study heterogeneity, comparative analyses included within-cohort studies using random-effects models.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified 108 studies including 24,631 probands with diverse clinical indications. The pooled diagnostic yield among within-cohort studies (<em>N</em> = 13) for GWS was 34.2% (95% CI: 27.6-41.5; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>: 86%) vs 18.1% (95% CI: 13.1-24.6; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>: 89%) for non-GWS, with 2.4-times odds of diagnosis (95% CI: 1.40-4.04; <em>P</em> &lt; .05). The pooled diagnostic yield among within-cohort studies (<em>N</em> = 3) for GS was 30.6% (95% CI: 18.6-45.9; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>: 79%) vs 23.2% (95% CI: 18.5-28.7; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>: 58%) for ES, with 1.7-times the odds of diagnosis (95% CI: 0.94-2.92; <em>P</em> = .13). In first-line testing, the diagnostic yield tended to be higher for GS than for ES across clinical subgroups. The pooled clinical utility among patients with a positive diagnosis was 58.7% (95% CI: 47.3-69.2; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup>: 81%) for GS and 54.5% (95% CI: 40.7-67.6; <em>I</em> <sup>2</sup>: 87%) for ES.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>GS appears to have a higher diagnostic yield than ES, with similar clinical utility per positive diagnosis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"27 6","pages":"Article 101398"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360025000450","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To systematically evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES; genome-wide sequencing [GWS]) in pediatric patients with rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published between 2011 and 2023. To address study heterogeneity, comparative analyses included within-cohort studies using random-effects models.

Results

We identified 108 studies including 24,631 probands with diverse clinical indications. The pooled diagnostic yield among within-cohort studies (N = 13) for GWS was 34.2% (95% CI: 27.6-41.5; I2: 86%) vs 18.1% (95% CI: 13.1-24.6; I2: 89%) for non-GWS, with 2.4-times odds of diagnosis (95% CI: 1.40-4.04; P < .05). The pooled diagnostic yield among within-cohort studies (N = 3) for GS was 30.6% (95% CI: 18.6-45.9; I2: 79%) vs 23.2% (95% CI: 18.5-28.7; I2: 58%) for ES, with 1.7-times the odds of diagnosis (95% CI: 0.94-2.92; P = .13). In first-line testing, the diagnostic yield tended to be higher for GS than for ES across clinical subgroups. The pooled clinical utility among patients with a positive diagnosis was 58.7% (95% CI: 47.3-69.2; I2: 81%) for GS and 54.5% (95% CI: 40.7-67.6; I 2: 87%) for ES.

Conclusion

GS appears to have a higher diagnostic yield than ES, with similar clinical utility per positive diagnosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基因组和外显子组测序对儿科罕见和未确诊遗传病的诊断率和临床效用的荟萃分析。
目的:系统评价基因组和外显子组测序(GS和ES)的诊断率和临床应用价值;全基因组测序(GWS)在患有罕见和未确诊遗传性疾病的儿科患者中的应用。方法:我们对2011年至2023年间发表的研究进行了荟萃分析。为了解决研究异质性,比较分析仅使用随机效应模型纳入队列研究。结果:我们确定了108项研究,包括24,631个具有不同临床适应症的先证者。队列内研究(N=13)对GWS的合并诊断率为34.2% (95% CI: 27.6, 41.5;I2: 86%) vs. 18.1% (13.1, 24.6;I2: 89%),诊断几率为2.4倍(1.40,4.04;结论:GS的诊断率比ES高,每个阳性诊断的临床效用相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Genetics in Medicine
Genetics in Medicine 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.80%
发文量
857
审稿时长
1.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health. GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
A scalable new model of germline cancer genomic care delivery: Assessing psychological outcomes Diagnostic yield of exome reanalysis over time: Contribution of reevaluation type, timing, and patient phenotype Germline genetic testing and privacy concerns in patients with mesothelioma Biallelic variants in FAT3 cause axonal neuropathy with multisystem neurodevelopmental features. Employing bioinformatic tools to identify high-risk variants of uncertain significance in aortopathy genes that increase aortic dissection risk.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1