Dataset Information

Comparison of the diagnostic yield of aCGH and genome-wide sequencing across different neurodevelopmental disorders.

ABSTRACT: Most consensus recommendations for the genetic diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) do not include the use of next generation sequencing (NGS) and are still based on chromosomal microarrays, such as comparative genomic hybridization array (aCGH). This study compares the diagnostic yield obtained by aCGH and clinical exome sequencing in NDD globally and its spectrum of disorders. To that end, 1412 patients clinically diagnosed with NDDs and studied with aCGH were classified into phenotype categories: global developmental delay/intellectual disability (GDD/ID); autism spectrum disorder (ASD); and other NDDs. These categories were further subclassified based on the most frequent accompanying signs and symptoms into isolated forms, forms with epilepsy; forms with micro/macrocephaly and syndromic forms. Two hundred and forty-five patients of the 1412 were subjected to clinical exome sequencing. Diagnostic yield of aCGH and clinical exome sequencing, expressed as the number of solved cases, was compared for each phenotype category and subcategory. Clinical exome sequencing was superior than aCGH for all cases except for isolated ASD, with no additional cases solved by NGS. Globally, clinical exome sequencing solved 20% of cases (versus 5.7% by aCGH) and the diagnostic yield was highest for all forms of GDD/ID and lowest for Other NDDs (7.1% versus 1.4% by aCGH) and ASD (6.1% versus 3% by aCGH). In the majority of cases, diagnostic yield was higher in the phenotype subcategories than in the mother category. These results suggest that NGS could be used as a first-tier test in the diagnostic algorithm of all NDDs followed by aCGH when necessary.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Granero F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7994713 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesThe timely diagnosis of inherited metabolic disorders (IMD) is essential for initiating treatment, prognostication and genetic testing of relatives. Recognition of IMD in adults is difficult, because phenotypes are different from those in children and influenced by symptoms from acquired conditions. This systematic literature review aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the diagnostic yield of exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) for IMD in adults with unsolved phenotypes? (2) What characteristics do adult patients diagnosed with IMD through ES/GS have?MethodsA systematic search was conducted using the following search terms (simplified): "Whole exome sequencing (WES)," "Whole genome sequencing (WGS)," "IMD," "diagnostics" and the 1,450 known metabolic genes derived from ICIMD. Data from 695 articles, including 27,702 patients, were analyzed using two different methods. First, the diagnostic yield for IMD in patients presenting with a similar phenotype was calculated. Secondly, the characteristics of patients diagnosed with IMD through ES/GS in adulthood were established.ResultsThe diagnostic yield of ES and/or GS for adult patients presenting with unexplained neurological symptoms is 11% and for those presenting with dyslipidemia, diabetes, auditory and cardiovascular symptoms 10, 9, 8 and 7%, respectively. IMD patients diagnosed in adulthood (n = 1,426), most frequently portray neurological symptoms (65%), specifically extrapyramidal/cerebellar symptoms (57%), intellectual disability/dementia/psychiatric symptoms (41%), pyramidal tract symptoms/myelopathy (37%), peripheral neuropathy (18%), and epileptic seizures (16%). The second most frequently observed symptoms were ophthalmological (21%). In 47% of the IMD diagnosed patients, symptoms from multiple organ systems were reported. On average, adult patients are diagnosed 15 years after first presenting symptoms. Disease-related abnormalities in metabolites in plasma, urine or cerebral spinal fluid were identified in 40% of all patients whom underwent metabolic screening. In 52% the diagnosis led to identification of affected family members with the same IMD.ConclusionES and/or GS is likely to yield an IMD diagnosis in adult patients presenting with an unexplained neurological phenotype, as well as in patients with a phenotype involving multiple organ systems. If a gene panel does not yield a conclusive diagnosis, it is worthwhile to analyze all known disease genes. Further prospective research is needed to establish the best diagnostic approach (type and sequence of metabolic and genetic test) in adult patients presenting with a wide range of symptoms, suspected of having an IMD.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021295156.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the diagnostic yield of aCGH and genome-wide sequencing across different neurodevelopmental disorders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets