PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Heidi L Rehm
AU  - Joseph T Alaimo
AU  - Swaroop Aradhya
AU  - Pinar Bayrak-Toydemir
AU  - Hunter Best
AU  - Rhonda Brandon
AU  - Jillian G Buchan
AU  - Elizabeth C Chao
AU  - Elaine Chen
AU  - Jacob Clifford
AU  - Ana S Cohen
AU  - Laura K Conlin
AU  - Soma Das
AU  - Kyle W Davis
AU  - Daniela del Gaudio
AU  - Florencia Del Viso
AU  - Christina DiVincenzo
AU  - Marcia Eisenberg
AU  - Lucia Guidugli
AU  - Monia B Hammer
AU  - Steven M Harrison
AU  - Kathryn E Hatchell
AU  - Lindsay Havens Dyer
AU  - Lily U Hoang
AU  - James M Holt
AU  - Vaidehi Jobanputra
AU  - Izabela D Karbassi
AU  - Hutton M Kearney
AU  - Melissa A Kelly
AU  - Jacob M Kelly
AU  - Michelle L Kluge
AU  - Timothy Komala
AU  - Paul Kruszka
AU  - Lynette Lau
AU  - Matthew S Lebo
AU  - Christian R Marshall
AU  - Dianalee McKnight
AU  - Kirsty McWalter
AU  - Yan Meng
AU  - Narasimhan Nagan
AU  - Christian S Neckelmann
AU  - Nir Neerman
AU  - Zhiyv Niu
AU  - Vitoria K Paolillo
AU  - Sarah A Paolucci
AU  - Denise Perry
AU  - Tina Pesaran
AU  - Kelly Radtke
AU  - Kristen J Rasmussen
AU  - Kyle Retterer
AU  - Carol J Saunders
AU  - Elizabeth Spiteri
AU  - Christine Stanley
AU  - Anna Szuto
AU  - Ryan J Taft
AU  - Isabelle Thiffault
AU  - Brittany C Thomas
AU  - Amanda Thomas-Wilson
AU  - Erin Thorpe
AU  - Timothy J Tidwell
AU  - Meghan C Towne
AU  - Hana Zouk
AU  - the Medical Genome Initiative
TI  - Genomic sequencing tests generate less uncertainty and higher diagnostic yield compared to multi-gene panel-based tests: Results of over 1.5 million tests
AID  - 10.1101/2022.09.21.22279949
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.09.21.22279949
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/22/2022.09.21.22279949.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/22/2022.09.21.22279949.full
AB  - BACKGROUND Genetic testing frequently identifies variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Providers, however, are often ill-prepared or too time-constrained to manage these findings, and insurers are concerned about impacts on clinical care and cost. Here we compared the contribution of panel-based and genomic (exome and genome) testing to the generation of inconclusive results due to VUSs.METHODS Rates of inconclusive results due to VUS and diagnostic yield were determined from over 1.5 million sequencing test results from 19 clinical laboratories in North America from 2020 - 2021.RESULTS We found a lower rate of inconclusive test results due to VUSs from genomic tests (22.5%) compared to multi-gene panel tests (32.6%; p<0.001) and a higher diagnostic yield (17.5% vs 10.3%; p<0.001). For panel tests, the rate of inconclusive results correlated with panel size. The use of trios improved yield (19.5% vs 15.2%; p<0.001) and reduced inconclusive rates (18.9% vs 27.6%; p<0.001). The use of genome sequencing compared to exome improved yield (25.1% vs 16.6%; p<0.001) without increasing the rate of inconclusive results (22.2% vs 22.6%).CONCLUSION Genomic sequencing demonstrated reduced uncertainty and higher molecular diagnostic yield compared to panel testing. This difference is best explained by obligatory reporting of all VUSs in panel-based testing compared to genomic testing where correlation with phenotype is used to constrain variant reporting. These results may inform future genetic testing practices and heighten appreciation for the professional skills involved in genomic test interpretation.Competing Interest StatementAll authors are employed by clinical laboratories offering genetic testing services, as indicated by their affiliations. Additional conflicts include: Swaroop Aradhya, Elaine Chen, Kathryn E Hatchell, and Dianalee McKnight - Stockholders of Invitae; Christina DiVincenzo, Izabela D Karbassi - Stockholders of Quest Diagnostics; Kyle Retterer - Stockholder of Sema4 and Opko Health; Kyle W Davis, Nir Neerman, and Christine Stanley - Stockholders of VariantyxFunding StatementHR's participation in this study was funded in part by the National Human Genome Research Institute under award U24HG006834.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NOT HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH DETERMINATION Date: September 21, 2022 Title of Project: Comparing the rate of uncertainty generated from panels versus genomic sequencing tests Project Lead Name: Heidi Rehm The above referenced project does not meet the criteria for human subject research as defined by Mass General Brigham Human Research Office policies and Health and Human Services regulations set forth in 45 CFR 46. Based on the information you provided this activity is not human subjects research because does not involve human subjects. The project does not require IRB approval. This NHSR activity is not applicable for Clinicaltrials.gov registration. Please retain a copy of this letter in your project file. Please feel free to contact our office directly (partnersirb{at}partners.org) with any questions related to this determination. Sincerely, Ben McGill, MS, CIP Expedited Specialist II, Human Research Affairs bmcgill1{at}partners.orgI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll aggregate data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors