<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>23(1)</volume><submitter>Jayasinghe K</submitter><funding>Melbourne Genomics</funding><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/h4>To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p &lt; 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%)</pubmed_abstract><journal>Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics</journal><pagination>183-191</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7790755</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC7790755</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Patel C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Talbot A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Valente G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stark Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Nicholls K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wilkins E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Trainer A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hunter M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jarmolowicz A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Prawer Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jayasinghe K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kerr PG</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Whitlam J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wardrop L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>White SM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Quinlan C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martyn M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Krzesinski E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>See EJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mallett AJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>West KH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wallis M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lunke S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gaff C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Johnstone L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tytherleigh R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ryan J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Creighton B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lynch E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Donaldson E</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease.</name><description>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/h4>To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p &lt; 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%)</description><dates><release>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2021 Jan</publication><modification>2026-05-03T08:24:44.686Z</modification><creation>2021-02-21T01:09:35Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC7790755</accession><cross_references><pubmed>32939031</pubmed><doi>10.1038/s41436-020-00963-4</doi></cross_references></HashMap>