Human Genetics

, Volume 135, Issue 6, pp 655–673 | Cite as

Regulating whole exome sequencing as a diagnostic test

  • Valentina Lapin
  • Lindsey C. Mighion
  • Cristina P. da Silva
  • Ymkje Cuperus
  • Lora J. H. Bean
  • Madhuri R. HegdeEmail author
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Exome Sequencing


In the last decade, there has been a flood of new technology in the sequencing arena. The onset of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has resulted in the vast increase in genetic diagnostic testing available to the ordering physician. Whole exome sequencing (WES) has become available as a diagnostic test performed in certified clinical laboratories. This has led to increased presence in the diagnostic marketplace, increased consumer awareness, and the question has been raised by various stakeholders to whether there is sufficient stringent regulation of WES and other NGS-based tests. We discuss the various WES services currently available in the marketplace, current regulation of WES as a laboratory developed test, the proposed FDA involvement in its oversight as well as the response of various laboratory groups that provide these diagnostic services. Overall, a rigorous process oversight and assessment of inter-lab reproducibility is strongly warranted for WES as it is used as a diagnostic test, but regulation should be mindful of the excessive administrative burden on academic and smaller diagnostic laboratories.


NGS FDA Regulatory guidelines Laboratory developed tests CAP CLIA 


  1. ACLA (2014) ACLA retains Attorneys Paul D. Clement and Laurence H. tribe to represent ACLA in opposing the FDA’s proposal to treat laboratory developed tests (LDTs) as Medical Devices American Clinical Laboratory Association.
  2. ACMG (2012) Policy statement: points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing.
  3. ACMG (2016) American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.
  4. ACMG (2015) Oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs).
  5. AdvaMedDx (2015) Comment of the FDA draft “Guidance for industry, FDA staff, and clinical laboratories on framework for regulatory oversight of laboratory developed tests”.
  6. Agilent (2016) Agilent Technologies Clinical Research Exome. Agilent Technologies.
  7. AMP (2015b) Proposal for modernization of CLIA regulations for laboratory developed testing procedures (LDPs).
  8. Aziz N et al (2015) College of American Pathologists’ laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing clinical tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139:481–493. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0250-CP CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. CAP (2013) College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program Standards for Accreditation.
  10. CAP (2015) Summary of CAP’s legislative proposal for the regulatory framework of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs).
  11. CAP (2016) College of American Pathologists.
  12. CFC-HSC (2011) Cystic fibrosis mutation database. Cystic Fibrosis Centre at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
  13. CFR (2016a) 42 CFR 493—standards and certification: laboratory requirements. U.S. Government Publishing Office.
  14. CFR (2016b) 42 CFR 493.1253—Standard: establishment and verification of performance specifications. U.S. Government Publishing Office.
  15. CFTR2 (2016) The clinical and functional translation of CFTR (CFTR2). US CF Foundation, Johns Hopkins University, The Hospital for Sick Children.
  16. Chin EL, da Silva C, Hegde M (2013) Assessment of clinical analytical sensitivity and specificity of next-generation sequencing for detection of simple and complex mutations. BMC Genet 14:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-14-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Clement PD, Tribe LH (2016) Laboratory testing services, as the practice of medicine, cannot be regulated as medical devices.
  18. CLEP (2016) Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program. Department of Health, Wadsworth Center.
  19. CLF (2016) Clinical Laboratory Facilities. California Department of Public Health—Laboratory Field Services.
  20. CLIA (2016b) What is CMS’ authority regarding laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and how does it differ from FDA’s authority?
  21. CMS (2015) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and Medicare Laboratory Services. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed 30 Nov 2015
  22. CMS (2016a) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed 30 Nov 2015
  23. CMS (2016b) How to obtain a CLIA certificate? CMS—Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA).
  24. DAkkS (2016) Germany’s National Accreditation Body (DAkkS). Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle.
  25. EMGQN (2016) European Molecular Genetics Quality Network.
  26. FAHCA (2016) Clinical Laboratories. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration.
  27. FDA (2013a) 510(k) summary for MiSeqDx cystic fibrosis system.
  28. FDA (2013b) The evaluation of automatic class III designation for MiSeqDx platform.
  29. FDA (2013c) FDA allows marketing of four “next generation” gene sequencing devices.
  30. FDA (2013d) FDA news release: FDA allows marketing of four “next generation” gene sequencing devices.
  31. FDA (2014a) Establishment registration and device listing: Ion OneTouch™ Dx.
  32. FDA (2014b) Establishment registration and device listing: Sentosa SQ301 Sequencer.
  33. FDA (2014c) Product classification: high throughput DNA sequence analyzer.
  34. FDA (2015a) Developing analytical standards for NGS testing.
  35. FDA (2015b) IVD Regulatory assistance: clinical laboratory improvement amendments (CLIA). Accessed 11/30/15 2015
  36. FDA (2015c) Optimizing FDA’s regulatory oversight of next generation sequencing diagnostic tests—preliminary discussion paper.
  37. FDA (2015d) Use of databases for establishing the clinical relevance of human genetic variant.
  38. FDA (2016e) PrecisionFDA.
  39. Gargis AS et al (2012) Assuring the quality of next-generation sequencing in clinical laboratory practice. Nat Biotechnol 30:1033–1036. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2403 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gargis AS et al (2015) Good laboratory practice for clinical next-generation sequencing informatics pipelines. Nat Biotechnol 33:689–693. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3237 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. GDCH (2012) Clinical Laboratory Licensure Packet. Georgia Department of Community Health.
  42. Gilissen C, Hoischen A, Brunner HG, Veltman JA (2012) Disease gene identification strategies for exome sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 20:490–497. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.258 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Gilissen C et al (2014) Genome sequencing identifies major causes of severe intellectual disability. Nature 511(7509):344–347. doi: 10.1038/nature13394 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Green RC et al (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15:565–574. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Hegde M et al (2015) Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing—a clinical laboratory perspective: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn 17:107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. HGVS (2016) Nomenclature for the description of sequence variants. Human Genome Variation Society.
  47. Illumina (2016) Data Sheet: MiSeqDx™ Universal Kit.
  48. ISO (2012) ISO 15189:2012 Medical laboratories—requirements for quality and competence. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
  49. MDHMH (2016) Maryland Laboratory Licensure. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
  50. NATA (2016) National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia.
  51. NCBI (2016) The GeT-RM Browser at NCBI.
  52. Need AC et al (2012) Clinical application of exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic conditions. J Med Genet 49(6):353–361. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-100819 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. NIH (2016) GTR: Genetic Testing Registry. National Institutes of Health.
  54. NIST (2015) Standard reference materials: RM 8398.
  55. NYSDH (2015) Guidelines for validation submissions of next generation sequencing (NGS) assays under the NYS testing category of genetic testing—molecular. New York State Department of Health.
  56. PDH (2016) Bureau of Laboratories—Division of Laboratory Improvements. Pennsylvania Department of Health.
  57. Ray T (2015) House E&C committee questions FDA, CMS about scope of LDT regulatory problem.
  58. Ray T (2016) Alternative proposals for lab test regulation—are there opportunities for consensus? A GenomeWeb report.
  59. Richards CS, Palomaki GE, Lacbawan FL, Lyon E, Feldman GL, Biochemical CA, Molecular Genetics Resource C (2014) Three-year experience of a CAP/ACMG methods-based external proficiency testing program for laboratories offering DNA sequencing for rare inherited disorders. Genet Med 16:25–32. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.65 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Richards S et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17:405–424. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Rubinstein WS et al (2013) The NIH genetic testing registry: a new, centralized database of genetic tests to enable access to comprehensive information and improve transparency. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D925–D935. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1173 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Schrijver I, Aziz N, Jennings LJ, Richards CS, Voelkerding KV, Weck KE (2014) Methods-based proficiency testing in molecular genetic pathology. J Mol Diagn 16:283–287. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.02.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. von Bubnoff A (2008) Next-generation sequencing: the race is on. Cell 132:721–723. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. WSDH (2016) Laboratory Quality Assurance. Washington State Department of Health.
  65. Yang Y et al (2013) Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med 369(16):1502–1511. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306555

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Lapin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lindsey C. Mighion
    • 2
  • Cristina P. da Silva
    • 2
  • Ymkje Cuperus
    • 2
  • Lora J. H. Bean
    • 1
    • 2
  • Madhuri R. Hegde
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Human GeneticsEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.EGL Genetic DiagnosticsDecaturUSA

Personalised recommendations