ABSTRACT
Purpose To evaluate the impact of technically challenging variants on the implementation, validation, and diagnostic yield of commonly used clinical genetic tests. Such variants include large indels, small CNVs, complex alterations, and variants in low-complexity or segmentally duplicated regions.
Methods An interlaboratory pilot study used novel synthetic specimens to assess detection of challenging variant types by various NGS-based workflows. One well-performing workflow was further validated and used in clinician-ordered testing of more than 450,000 patients.
Results In the interlaboratory study, only two of 13 challenging variants were detected by all 10 workflows, and just three workflows detected all 13. Limitations were also observed among 11 less-challenging indels. In clinical testing, 21.6% of patients carried one or more pathogenic variants, of which 13.8% (17,561) were classified as technically challenging. These variants were of diverse types, affecting 556 of 1,217 genes across hereditary cancer, cardiovascular, neurological, pediatric, reproductive carrier screening, and other indicated tests.
Conclusion The analytic and clinical sensitivity of NGS workflows can vary considerably, particularly for prevalent, technically challenging variants. This can have important implications for the design and validation of tests (by laboratories) and the selection of tests (by clinicians) for a wide range of clinical indications.
Competing Interest Statement
Authors SEL, SLB, RLN, SA, KH, TH, RT, MK are employees of and own stock and/or stock options in Invitae. SEL also owns stock in Illumina and Thermo Fisher. RLN owns stock in Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical and Personalis, and consults for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. RKG is an employee of and owns stock in and CH is an employee of SeraCare. FLT is a former employee of SeraCare and current employee of Meso Scale Diagnostics. EWK receives royalties from SoftGenetics. MF receives royalties from SoftGenetics and serves as a consultant to OneOme. NR serves as a Non-Executive Director of AstraZeneca. JMZ, MHC, PMV, MS, SC, YD, SFK, AF, WD, SM, SS, and BHS report no conflicts of interest
Funding Statement
Authors SK, SC, and YD were funded by NICHD/NHGRI grant U19HD077693. NR, SM, and SS were funded by Wellcome Trust grant 200990/Z/16/Z. BS was funded by the University of Washington and grants from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRR-33-15) and the NIH (R21HG008513, NCI 5P30 CA015704-39). The remaining authors were funded by their respective employers.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Our study protocol 20161796 was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All variants in this study have been submitted to ClinVar.
