Article | Published:

Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness

  • A Correction to this article was published on 29 August 2018



To systematically investigate the longer-term clinical and health economic impacts of genomic sequencing for rare-disease diagnoses.


We collected information on continuing diagnostic investigation, changes in management, cascade testing, and parental reproductive outcomes in 80 infants who underwent singleton whole-exome sequencing (WES).


The median duration of follow-up following result disclosure was 473 days. Changes in clinical management due to diagnostic WES results led to a cost saving of AU$1,578 per quality-adjusted life year gained, without increased hospital service use. Uninformative WES results contributed to the diagnosis of non-Mendelian conditions in seven infants. Further usual diagnostic investigations in those with ongoing suspicion of a genetic condition yielded no new diagnoses, while WES data reanalysis yielded four. Reanalysis at 18 months was more cost-effective than every 6 months. The parents of diagnosed children had eight more ongoing pregnancies than those without a diagnosis. Taking the costs and benefits of cascade testing and reproductive service use into account, there was an additional cost of AU$8,118 per quality-adjusted life year gained due to genomic sequencing.


These data strengthen the case for the early use of genomic testing in the diagnostic trajectory, and can guide laboratory policy on periodic WES data reanalysis.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 29 August 2018

    The original PDF version of this Article omitted to list Clara L Gaff as a corresponding author and the affiliations were incorrectly labelled as Present Addresses. Furthermore, Tables 1 and 2 have been updated to clarify that the Australian dollar is used for the values. These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


  1. 1.

    Stark Z, Tan TY, Chong B, et al. A prospective evaluation of whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders. Genet Med. 2016;18:1090–6.

  2. 2.

    Willig LK, Petrikin JE, Smith LD, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for identification of Mendelian disorders in critically ill infants: a retrospective analysis of diagnostic and clinical findings. Lancet Resp Med. 2015;3:377–87.

  3. 3.

    Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K, et al. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genet Med. 2017;19:867–74.

  4. 4.

    Tan TY, Dillon OJ, Stark Z, et al. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing for ambulant children with suspected monogenic conditions. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:855–62.

  5. 5.

    Vissers LE, van Nimwegen KJ, Schieving JH, et al. A clinical utility study of exome sequencing versus conventional genetic testing in pediatric neurology. Genet Med. 2017;19:1055–63.

  6. 6.

    Griffin BH, Chitty LS, Bitner-Glindzicz M. The 100 000 Genomes Project: what it means for paediatrics. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2016;102:105–7.

  7. 7.

    Baldridge D, Heeley J, Vineyard M, et al. The Exome Clinic and the role of medical genetics expertise in the interpretation of exome sequencing results. Genet Med. 2017;19:1040–8.

  8. 8.

    Meng L, Pammi M, Saronwala A, et al. Use of exome sequencing for infants in intensive care units: ascertainment of severe single-gene disorders and effect on medical management. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:e173438.

  9. 9.

    Sawyer SL, Hartley T, Dyment DA, et al. Utility of whole-exome sequencing for those near the end of the diagnostic odyssey: time to address gaps in care. Clin Genet. 2015;89:275–84.

  10. 10.

    Van Diemen CC, Kerstjens-Frederikse WS, Bergman KA, et al. Rapid targeted genomics in critically ill newborns. Pediatrics. 2017;140:e20162854.

  11. 11.

    Hayeems RZ, Bhawra J, Tsiplova K, et al. Care and cost consequences of pediatric whole genome sequencing compared to chromosome microarray. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:1303–12.

  12. 12.

    Bowdin S, Gilbert A, Bedoukian E, et al. Recommendations for the integration of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med. 2016;18:1075–84.

  13. 13.

    Wenger AM, Guturu H, Bernstein JA, Bejerano G. Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers. Genet Med. 2016;19:209–14.

  14. 14.

    Nambot S, Thevenon J, Kuentz P, et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare disorders with congenital anomalies and/or intellectual disability: substantial interest of prospective annual reanalysis. Genet Med.

  15. 15.

    Wright CF, McRae JF, Clayton S, et al. Making new genetic diagnoses with old data: iterative reanalysis and reporting from genome-wide data in 1,133 families with developmental disorders. Genet Med.

  16. 16.

    Jamal SM, Yu JH, Chong JX, et al. Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2013;161A:935–50.

  17. 17.

    Gaff CL, M Winship I, Forrest SM, Hansen DP, Clark J, Waring MP et al. Preparing for genomic medicine: a real world demonstration of health system change. Genom Med. 2017;2:16

  18. 18.

    Monroe GR, Frederix GW, Savelberg SM, et al. Effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing and costs of the traditional diagnostic trajectory in children with intellectual disability. Genet Med. 2016;18:949–56.

  19. 19.

    Walsh M, Bell KM, Chong B, et al. Diagnostic and cost utility of whole exome sequencing in peripheral neuropathy. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2017;4:318–25.

  20. 20.

    Schofield D, Alam K, Douglas L et al. Cost-effectiveness of massively parallel sequencing for diagnosis of paediatric muscle diseases. NPJ Genom. Med. 2017;2:4

  21. 21.

    Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009;155:21–5.

  22. 22.

    Scotland GS, McLernon D, Kurinczuk JJ, et al. Minimising twins in in vitro fertilisation: a modelling study assessing the costs, consequences and cost–utility of elective single versus double embryo transfer over a 20-year time horizon. BJOG. 2011;118:1073–83.

  23. 23.

    Evers-Kiebooms G, Denayer L, Van, den Berghe H. A child with cystic fibrosis: II. Subsequent family planning decisions, reproduction and use of prenatal diagnosis. Clin Genet. 1990;37:207–15.

  24. 24.

    Dragojlovic N, Elliott AM, Adam S, et al. The cost and diagnostic yield of exome sequencing for children with suspected genetic disorders: a benchmarking study. Genet Med.

Download references


We thank all collaborators in the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance Demonstration Project, and K. Hood for administrative support with preparation of the manuscript.


The study was funded by the founding organizations of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance (Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Children’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australian Genome Research Facility, and CSIRO) and the State Government of Victoria (Department of Health and Human Services). The involvement of AGRF was supported by sponsorship from Bioplatforms Australia and the NCRIS program.

Author information


The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Correspondence to Clara L. Gaff PhD.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Figure 1

  2. Supplementary Figure 1

  3. Supplementary Table 1

  4. Supplementary Table 2

  5. Supplementary Table 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark


  • cost-effectiveness; QALY; reanalysis; whole-exome sequencing

Further reading

Fig. 1: Cost-effectiveness plane of the reanalysis of WES data.
Fig. 2: Reproductive outcomes of the parents of infants with suspected monogenic disorders who underwent WES.