This study aims to inform future genetic reanalysis management by evaluating the yield of whole-exome sequencing (WES) reanalysis in standard patient care in the Netherlands. Single-center data of... Show moreThis study aims to inform future genetic reanalysis management by evaluating the yield of whole-exome sequencing (WES) reanalysis in standard patient care in the Netherlands. Single-center data of 159 patients with a neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD), in which WES analysis and reanalysis were performed between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021, was retrospectively collected. Patients were included if they were under the age of 18 years at initial analysis and if this initial analysis did not result in a diagnosis. Demographic, phenotypic, and genotypic characteristics of patients were collected and analyzed. The primary outcomes of our study were (i) diagnostic yield at reanalysis, (ii) reasons for detecting a new possibly causal variant at reanalysis, (iii) unsolicited findings, and (iv) factors associated with positive result of reanalysis. In addition, we conducted a questionnaire study amongst the 7 genetic department in the Netherlands creating an overview of used techniques, yield, and organization of WES reanalysis. The single-center data show that in most cases, WES reanalysis was initiated by the clinical geneticist (65%) or treating physician (30%). The mean time between initial WES analysis and reanalysis was 3.7 years. A new (likely) pathogenic variant or VUS with a clear link to the phenotype was found in 20 initially negative cases, resulting in a diagnostic yield of 12.6%. In 75% of these patients, the diagnosis had clinical consequences, as for example, a screening plan for associated signs and symptoms could be devised. Most (32%) of the (likely) causal variants identified at WES reanalysis were discovered due to a newly described gene-disease association. In addition to the 12.6% diagnostic yield based on new diagnoses, reclassification of a variant of uncertain significance found at initial analysis led to a definite diagnosis in three patients. Diagnostic yield was higher in patients with dysmorphic features compared to patients without clear dysmorphic features (yield 27% vs. 6%; p = 0.001).Conclusions: Our results show that WES reanalysis in patients with NDD in standard patient care leads to a substantial increase in genetic diagnoses. In the majority of newly diagnosed patients, the diagnosis had clinical consequences. Knowledge about the clinical impact of WES reanalysis, clinical characteristics associated with higher yield, and the yield per year after a negative WES in larger clinical cohorts is warranted to inform guidelines for genetic reanalysis. These guidelines will be of great value for pediatricians, pediatric rehabilitation specialists, and pediatric neurologists in daily care of patients with NDD. Show less
