Project Baby Bear: Rapid precision care incorporating rWGS in 5 California children’s hospitals demonstrates improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.

Genetic diseases are leading causes of childhood mortality. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) are relatively new methods for diagnosing genetic diseases, whereas chromosomal microarray (CMA) is well established. Here we compared the diagnostic utility (rate of causative, pathogenic, or likely pathogenic genotypes in known disease genes) and clinical utility (proportion in whom medical or surgical management was changed by diagnosis) of WGS, WES, and CMA in children with suspected genetic diseases by systematic review of the literature (January 2011–August 2017) and meta-analysis, following MOOSE/PRISMA guidelines. In 37 studies, comprising 20,068 children, diagnostic utility of WGS (0.41, 95% CI 0.34–0.48, I 2 = 44%) and WES (0.36, 95% CI 0.33–0.40, I 2 = 83%) were qualitatively greater than CMA (0.10, 95% CI 0.08–0.12, I 2 = 81%). Among studies published in 2017, the diagnostic utility of WGS was significantly greater than CMA (P < 0.0001, I 2 = 13% and I 2 = 40%, respectively). Among studies featuring within-cohort comparisons, the diagnostic utility of WES was significantly greater than CMA (P < 0.001, I 2 = 36%). The diagnostic utility of WGS and WES were not significantly different. In studies featuring within-cohort comparisons of WGS/WES, the likelihood of diagnosis was significantly greater for trios than singletons (odds ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.62–2.56, I 2 = 12%; P < 0.0001). Diagnostic utility of WGS/WES with hospital-based interpretation (0.42, 95% CI 0.38–0.45, I 2 = 48%) was qualitatively higher than that of reference laboratories (0.29, 95% CI 0.27–0.31, I 2 = 49%); this difference was significant among studies published in 2017 (P < .0001, I 2 = 22% and I 2 = 26%, respectively). The clinical utility of WGS (0.27, 95% CI 0.17–0.40, I 2 = 54%) and WES (0.17, 95% CI 0.12–0.24, I 2 = 76%) were higher than CMA (0.06, 95% CI 0.05–0.07, I 2 = 42%); this difference was significant for WGS vs CMA (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, in children with suspected genetic diseases, the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS/WES were greater than CMA. Subgroups with higher WGS/WES diagnostic utility were trios and those receiving hospital-based interpretation. WGS/WES should be considered a first-line genomic test for children with suspected genetic diseases.

Genetic disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in infants. Rapid whole-genome sequencing (rWGS) can diagnose genetic disorders in time to change acute medical or surgical management (clinical utility) and improve outcomes in acutely ill infants. We report a retrospective cohort study of acutely ill inpatient infants in a regional children’s hospital from July 2016–March 2017. Forty-two families received rWGS for etiologic diagnosis of genetic disorders. Probands also received standard genetic testing as clinically indicated. Primary end-points were rate of diagnosis, clinical utility, and healthcare utilization. The latter was modelled in six infants by comparing actual utilization with matched historical controls and/or counterfactual utilization had rWGS been performed at different time points. The diagnostic sensitivity of rWGS was 43% (eighteen of 42 infants) and 10% (four of 42 infants) for standard genetic tests (P = .0005). The rate of clinical utility of rWGS (31%, thirteen of 42 infants) was significantly greater than for standard genetic tests (2%, one of 42; P = .0015). Eleven (26%) infants with diagnostic rWGS avoided morbidity, one had a 43% reduction in likelihood of mortality, and one started palliative care. In six of the eleven infants, the changes in management reduced inpatient cost by $800,000–$2,000,000. These findings replicate a prior study of the clinical utility of rWGS in acutely ill inpatient infants, and demonstrate improved outcomes and net healthcare savings. rWGS merits consideration as a first tier test in this setting.