Despite the inevitable shift in medical practice towards a deeper understanding of disease etiology and progression through multigenic analysis, the profound historical impact of Mendelian diseases cannot be overlooked. These diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and thalassemia, are characterized by a single variant in a single gene leading to clinical conditions, and have significantly shaped our medical knowledge and treatments. In this respect, the monogenic approach inevitably results in the underutilization of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) data. Herein, a retrospective study was performed to assess the diagnostic value of the clinical exome in 32 probands with specific phenotypic characteristics (patients with autoinflammation and immunological dysregulation, N = 20; patients diagnosed with Hemolytic uremic syndrome N = 9; and patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, N = 3). A gene enrichment analysis was performed using the *. VCF file generated by SOPHiA-DDM-v4. This analysis selected a subset of genes containing pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants with autosomal dominant (AD) inheritance. In addition, all variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were included, filtered by AD inheritance mode, the presence of compound heterozygotes, and a minor allele frequency (MAF) cutoff of 0.05 %. The aim of the pipeline described here is based on a perspective shift that focuses on analyzing patients\' gene assets, offering new light on the complex interplay between genetics and disease presentation. Integrating this approach into clinical practices could significantly enhance the management of patients with rare genetic disorders.

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides a comprehensive and effective analysis of relevant disease-associated genes in a cost-effective manner compared to whole exome sequencing. Although several studies have focused on the diagnostic yield of CES, no study has assessed predictors of CES utility among patients with various Mendelian phenotypes. We assessed the effectiveness of CES as a first-level genetic test for molecular diagnosis in patients with a Mendelian phenotype and explored independent predictors of the clinical utility of CES.
Between January 2016 and December 2019, 603 patients (426 probands and 177 siblings) underwent CES at the Department of Molecular Medicine of the University Hospital of Nancy. The median age of the probands was 34 years (IQR, 12-48), and the proportion of males was 46.9% (200/426). Adults and children represented 64.8% (276/426) and 35.2% (150/426), respectively. The median test-to-report time was 5.6 months (IQR, 4.1-7.2). CES revealed 203 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 160 patients, corresponding to a diagnostic yield of 37.6% (160/426). Independent predictors of CES utility were criteria strongly suggestive of an extreme phenotype, including pediatric presentation and patient phenotypes associated with an increased risk of a priori probability of a monogenic disorder, the inclusion of at least one family member in addition to the proband, and a CES prescription performed by an expert in the field of rare genetic disorders.
Based on a large dataset of consecutive patients with various Mendelian phenotypes referred for CES as a first-tier genetic test, we report a diagnostic yield of ~ 40% and several independent predictors of CES utility that might improve CES diagnostic efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: With the use of next-generation sequencing in clinical practice, several genetic etiologies of dystonia have been identified. This study aimed to ascertain the utility of clinical exome sequencing (CES) in dystonia and factors suggestive of a genetic etiology.
METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients with dystonia who had undergone CES for the evaluation of dystonia.
RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (35 males, 46 families) with dystonia were studied, with a mean age at onset of 16.0 ± 14.1 (1-58) years. A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was found in 20 patients (41.7%) among which 14 patients (29.2%) carried a novel variant. CES was more likely to detect a genetic diagnosis in patients with an early age at onset, i.e., ≤ 20 years.
CONCLUSIONS: CES is a useful tool in the diagnostic evaluation of dystonia, with a yield of close to 40%. Patients with an earlier age at onset have a higher likelihood of having dystonia due to a genetic cause than those with a later age at onset.

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a group of inherited disorders with increased bone fragility and wide genetic heterogeneity. We report the outcome of clinical exome sequencing validated by Sanger sequencing in clinically diagnosed 54 OI patients in Indian population. In 52 patients, we report 20 new variants involving both dominant and recessive OI-specific genes and correlate these with phenotypes. COL1A1 and COL1A2 gene variants were identified in 44.23%, of which 28.84% were glycine substitution abnormalities. Two novel compound heterozygous variants in the FKBP10 gene were seen in two unrelated probands. A novel heterogeneous duplication of chromosomal region chr17: 48268168-48278884 from exons 1-33 of the COL1A1 gene was found in one proband. In five probands, there were additional variants in association with OI. These were ANO5 in association with CRTAP in two probands of the same family causing gnathodiaphyseal dysplasia, COL5A2 with LEPRE1 causing Ehlers Danlos syndrome, COL11A1 in addition to COL1A1 causing Stickler syndrome, and a previously unreported combination of SLC34A1 gene variant with FKBP10 leading to Fanconi renal tubular syndrome type II. Our findings demonstrate the efficacy of clinical exome sequencing in screening OI patients, classifying its subtypes, and identifying associated disorders in consanguineous populations.

Incidental and secondary findings (IFs and SFs) are subject to ongoing discussion as potential consequences of clinical exome sequencing (ES). International policy documents vary on the reporting of these findings. Discussion points include the practice of unintentionally identified IFs versus deliberately pursued SFs, patient opt-out possibilities and the spectrum of reportable findings. The heterogeneity of advice permits a non-standardised disclosure but research is lacking on actual reporting practices. Therefore, this study assessed national reporting practices for IFs and SFs in clinical ES and the underlying professional perspectives.
A qualitative focus group study has been undertaken, including professionals from Belgian centres for medical genetics (CMGs). Data were analysed thematically.
All Belgian CMGs participated in this study. Data analysis resulted in six main themes, including one regarding the reporting criteria used for IFs. All CMGs currently use ES-based panel testing. They have limited experience with IFs in clinical ES and are cautious about the pursuit of SFs. Two main reporting criteria for IFs were referred to by all CMGs: the clinical significance of the IF (including pathogenicity and medical actionability) and patient-related factors (including the patient\'s preference to know and patient characteristics). The consensus over the importance of these criteria contrasted with their challenging interpretation and application. Points of concern included IFs\' pathogenicity in non-symptomatic persons, IFs concerning variants of uncertain significance, the requirement and definition of medical actionability and patient opt-out possibilities. Finally, reporting decisions were guided by the interaction between the clinical significance of the IF and patient characteristics. This interaction questions the possible disclosure of findings with context-dependent and personal utility, such as IFs concerning a carrier status. To evaluate the IF\'s final relevance, a professional and case-by-case deliberation was considered essential.
The challenging application of reporting criteria for IFs results in diversified practices and policy perspectives within Belgian CMGs. This echoes international concerns and may have consequences for effective policy recommendations.

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES.
To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year.
Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1  month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09).
Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP.