Genetic diagnostic yield in an 11-year cohort of craniosynostosis patients

Craniosynostosis may present in isolation, ‘non-syndromic’, or with additional congenital anomalies/neurodevelopmental disorders, ‘syndromic’. Clinical focus shifted from confirming classical syndromic cases to offering genetic testing to all craniosynostosis patients. This retrospective study assesses diagnostic yield of molecular testing by investigating prevalences of chromosomal and monogenic (likely) pathogenic variants in an 11-year cohort of 1020 craniosynostosis patients. 502 children underwent genetic testing. Pathogenic variants were identified in 174 patients (35%). Diagnostic yield was significantly higher in syndromic craniosynostosis (62%) than in non-syndromic craniosynostosis (6%). Before whole exome sequencing (WES) emerged, single-gene testing was performed using Sanger sequencing or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Diagnostic yield was 11% and was highest for EFNB1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and IL11RA. Diagnostic yield for copy number variant analysis using microarray was 8%. From 2015 onwards, the WES craniosynostosis panel was implemented, with a yield of 10%. In unsolved, mainly syndromic, cases suspected of a genetic cause, additional WES panels (multiple congenital anomalies (MCA)/intellectual disability (ID)) or open exome analysis were performed with an 18% diagnostic yield. To conclude, microarray and the WES craniosynostosis panel are key to identifying pathogenic variants. in craniosynostosis patients. Given the advances in genetic diagnostics, we should look beyond the scope of the WES craniosynostosis panel and consider extensive genetic diagnostics (e.g. open exome sequencing, whole genome sequencing, RNA sequencing and episignature analysis) if no diagnosis is obtained through microarray and/or WES craniosynostosis panel. If parents are uncomfortable with more extensive diagnostics, MCA or ID panels may be considered.