No abstract

The results of this large-scale exome sequencing of patients and controls shed light on both well-established and controversial non-BRCA predisposition gene associations with breast or ovarian cancer reported to date and may implicate additional breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility gene candidates involved in DNA repair and genomic maintenance.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has rapidly replaced Sanger sequencing as the method of choice for diagnostic gene-panel testing. For hereditary-cancer testing, the technical sensitivity and specificity of the assay are paramount as clinicians use results to make important clinical management and treatment decisions. There is significant debate within the diagnostics community regarding the necessity of confirming NGS variant calls by Sanger sequencing, considering that numerous laboratories report having 100% specificity from the NGS data alone. Here we report our results from 20,000 hereditary-cancer NGS panels spanning 47 genes, in which all 7845 nonpolymorphic variants were Sanger- sequenced. Of these, 98.7% were concordant between NGS and Sanger sequencing and 1.3% were identified as NGS false-positives, located mainly in complex genomic regions (A/T-rich regions, G/C-rich regions, homopolymer stretches, and pseudogene regions). Simulating a false-positive rate of zero by adjusting the variant-calling quality-score thresholds decreased the sensitivity of the assay from 100% to 97.8%, resulting in the missed detection of 176 Sanger-confirmed variants, the majority in complex genomic regions (n = 114) and mosaic mutations (n = 7). The data illustrate the importance of setting quality thresholds for panel testing only after thousands of samples have been processed and the necessity of Sanger confirmation of NGS variants to maintain the highest possible sensitivity.

BackgroundWith the expanded availability of next generation sequencing (NGS)-based clinical genetic tests, clinicians seeking to test patients with Mendelian diseases must weigh the superior coverage of targeted gene panels with the greater number of genes included in whole exome sequencing (WES) when considering their first-tier testing approach. Here, we use an in silico analysis to predict the analytic sensitivity of WES using pathogenic variants identified on targeted NGS panels as a reference.MethodsCorresponding nucleotide positions for 1533 different alterations classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic identified on targeted NGS multi-gene panel tests in our laboratory were interrogated in data from 100 randomly-selected clinical WES samples to quantify the sequence coverage at each position. Pathogenic variants represented 91 genes implicated in hereditary cancer, X-linked intellectual disability, primary ciliary dyskinesia, Marfan syndrome/aortic aneurysms, cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias.ResultsWhen assessing coverage among 100 individual WES samples for each pathogenic variant (153,300 individual assessments), 99.7% (n = 152,798) would likely have been detected on WES. All pathogenic variants had at least some coverage on exome sequencing, with a total of 97.3% (n = 1491) detectable across all 100 individuals. For the remaining 42 pathogenic variants, the number of WES samples with adequate coverage ranged from 35 to 99. Factors such as location in GC-rich, repetitive, or homologous regions likely explain why some of these alterations were not detected across all samples. To validate study findings, a similar analysis was performed against coverage data from 60,706 exomes available through the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). Results from this validation confirmed that 98.6% (91,743,296/93,062,298) of pathogenic variants demonstrated adequate depth for detection.ConclusionsResults from this in silico analysis suggest that exome sequencing may achieve a diagnostic yield similar to panel-based testing for Mendelian diseases.

Purpose:Diagnostic exome sequencing (DES) is now a commonly ordered test for individuals with undiagnosed genetic disorders. In addition to providing a diagnosis for characterized diseases, exome sequencing has the capacity to uncover novel candidate genes for disease.Methods:Family-based DES included analysis of both characterized and novel genetic etiologies. To evaluate candidate genes for disease in the clinical setting, we developed a systematic, rule-based classification schema.Results:Testing identified a candidate gene among 7.7% (72/934) of patients referred for DES; 37 (4.0%) and 35 (3.7%) of the genes received evidence scores of “candidate” and “suspected candidate,” respectively. A total of 71 independent candidate genes were reported among the 72 patients, and 38% (27/71) were subsequently corroborated in the peer-reviewed literature. This rate of corroboration increased to 51.9% (27/52) among patients whose gene was reported at least 12 months previously.Conclusions:Herein, we provide transparent, comprehensive, and standardized scoring criteria for the clinical reporting of candidate genes. These results demonstrate that DES is an integral tool for genetic diagnosis, especially for elucidating the molecular basis for both characterized and novel candidate genetic etiologies. Gene discoveries also advance the understanding of normal human biology and more common diseases.Genet Med 19 2, 224–235.