PurposeFor neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), etiological evaluation can be a diagnostic odyssey involving numerous genetic tests, underscoring the need to develop a streamlined algorithm maximizing molecular diagnostic yield for this clinical indication. Our objective was to compare the yield of exome sequencing (ES) with that of chromosomal microarray (CMA), the current first-tier test for NDDs.MethodsWe performed a PubMed scoping review and meta-analysis investigating the diagnostic yield of ES for NDDs as the basis of a consensus development conference. We defined NDD as global developmental delay, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder. The consensus development conference included input from genetics professionals, pediatric neurologists, and developmental behavioral pediatricians.ResultsAfter applying strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, we identified 30 articles with data on molecular diagnostic yield in individuals with isolated NDD, or NDD plus associated conditions (such as Rett-like features). Yield of ES was 36% overall, 31% for isolated NDD, and 53% for the NDD plus associated conditions. ES yield for NDDs is markedly greater than previous studies of CMA (15–20%).ConclusionOur review demonstrates that ES consistently outperforms CMA for evaluation of unexplained NDDs. We propose a diagnostic algorithm placing ES at the beginning of the evaluation of unexplained NDDs.

Objectives: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood motor disability, yet its link to single-gene disorders is under-characterized. To explore the genetic landscape of CP, we conducted whole exome sequencing (WES) in a cohort of patients with CP. Methods: We performed comprehensive phenotyping and WES on a prospective cohort of individuals with cryptogenic CP (who meet criteria for CP; have no risk factors), non-cryptogenic CP (who meet criteria for CP; have at least one risk factor), and CP masqueraders (who could be diagnosed with CP, but have regression/progressive symptoms). We characterized motor phenotypes, ascertained medical comorbidities, and classified brain MRIs. We analyzed WES data using an institutional pipeline. Results: We included 50 probands in this analysis (20 females, 30 males). Twenty-four had cryptogenic CP, 20 had non-cryptogenic CP, five had CP masquerader classification, and one had unknown classification. Hypotonic-ataxic subtype showed a difference in prevalence across the classification groups (p = 0.01). Twenty-six percent of participants (13/50) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in 13 unique genes (ECHS1,

Although norm-referenced scores are essential to the identification of disability, they possess several features which affect their sensitivity to change. Norm-referenced scores often decrease over time among people with neurodevelopmental disorders who exhibit slower-than-average increases in ability. Further, the reliability of norm-referenced scores is lower at the tails of the distribution, resulting in floor effects and increased measurement error for people with neurodevelopmental disorders. In contrast, the person ability scores generated during the process of constructing a standardized test with item response theory are designed to assess change. We illustrate these limitations of norm-referenced scores, and relative advantages of ability scores, using data from studies of autism spectrum disorder and creatine transporter deficiency.

In our meta-analysis, we utilized incorrect numbers of individuals for one publication (Retterer et al. 2016) due to the fact the numbers for ASD and ID groups were not independent representations. We have updated our analysis using corrected numbers based on correspondence with the first author of this paper (diagnostic yield for NDD = 543/1736 as opposed to 570/2063). The updated analysis leads to the same (rounded) weighted diagnostic yield and confidence intervals (CI) as the initial publication (36% [30-43%]). The updated analysis results in the following updated values in Fig. 2: Retterer study values: N positive = 543, N total = 1736, study weight = 5.3% and meta-analysis statistics: I 2 = 80%, τ 2 = 0.2835, p < 0.01.