This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Purpose Short-read genome sequencing (GS) is a comprehensive genetic testing method capable of detecting multiple variant types. Despite its technical advantages, systemic comparisons of singleton GS (sGS), trio GS (tGS), and exome sequencing-based standard-of-care (SoC) in real-world diagnostics remain limited. Methods We systematically compared sGS, tGS, and SoC genetic testing in 448 patients with rare diseases in a blinded, prospective study. Three independent teams evaluated the diagnostic yield, variant detection capabilities, and clinical feasibility of GS as a first-tier test. Diagnostic yield was assessed through both prospective and retrospective analyses. Results In prospective analyses, tGS achieved the highest diagnostic yield for likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants (36.8%) in a newly trained team, outperforming the experienced SoC team (36.0%) and the sGS team (30.4%). Retrospective analyses, accounting for technical variant detection and team experience differences, reported diagnostic yields of 38.6% for SoC, 41.3% for sGS, and 42.2% for tGS. GS excelled in identifying deep intronic, non-coding, and small copy-number variants missed by SoC. Notably, tGS additionally identified three de novo variants classified as likely pathogenic based on recent GeneMatcher collaborations and newly published gene-disease association studies. Conclusion GS, particularly tGS, demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, supporting its use as a first-tier genetic test. sGS offers a cost-effective alternative, enabling faster, more efficient diagnoses for rare disease patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaschta et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: