Search

Purpose: The translation of genome sequencing into routine health care has been slow, partly because of concerns about affordability. The aspirational cost of sequencing a genome is $1000, but there is little evidence to support this estimate. We estimate the cost of using genome sequencing in routine clinical care in patients with cancer or rare diseases., Methods: We performed a microcosting study of Illumina-based genome sequencing in a UK National Health Service laboratory processing 399 samples/year. Cost data were collected for all steps in the sequencing pathway, including bioinformatics analysis and reporting of results. Sensitivity analysis identified key cost drivers., Results: Genome sequencing costs £6841 per cancer case (comprising matched tumor and germline samples) and £7050 per rare disease case (three samples). The consumables used during sequencing are the most expensive component of testing (68-72% of the total cost). Equipment costs are higher for rare disease cases, whereas consumable and staff costs are slightly higher for cancer cases., Conclusion: The cost of genome sequencing is underestimated if only sequencing costs are considered, and likely surpasses $1000/genome in a single laboratory. This aspirational sequencing cost will likely only be achieved if consumable costs are considerably reduced and sequencing is performed at scale.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) efforts have established catalogs of mutations relevant to cancer development. However, the clinical utility of this information remains largely unexplored. Here, we present the results of the first eight patients recruited into a clinical whole-genome sequencing (WGS) program in the United Kingdom. We performed PCR-free WGS of fresh frozen tumors and germline DNA at 75× and 30×, respectively, using the HiSeq2500 HTv4. Subtracted tumor VCFs and paired germlines were subjected to comprehensive analysis of coding and noncoding regions, integration of germline with somatically acquired variants, and global mutation signatures and pathway analyses. Results were classified into tiers and presented to a multidisciplinary tumor board. WGS results helped to clarify an uncertain histopathological diagnosis in one case, led to informed or supported prognosis in two cases, leading to de-escalation of therapy in one, and indicated potential treatments in all eight. Overall 26 different tier 1 potentially clinically actionable findings were identified using WGS compared with six SNVs/indels using routine targeted NGS. These initial results demonstrate the potential of WGS to inform future diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment choice in cancer and justify the systematic evaluation of the clinical utility of WGS in larger cohorts of patients with cancer., (© 2018 Schuh et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.)