Pages

Sunday, February 26, 2012

NGS & DX?

There's an interesting conversation going on about error rates in DNA sequencing in the Genomics (NGS) group on LinkedIn. Some are wondering if development of DNA sequencing diagnostic applications will be delayed by the experienced error rates (up to 4% on some platforms, including Oxford Nanopore.)

My take: I think the barriers to adoption of sequencing technologies as diagnostics are:

-any error-intolerant application is still likely to rely on RT-PCR for a while to come. (Example: detecting specific BCR-ABL mutations in CML patients.)

If you have a specific gene of interest, or even genes (up to about 10 or 20, depending on who you listen to) 

-PCR still wins the day, because of accuracy, speed, cost, privacy concerns, and the fact that PCR apps have familiar payor and FDA tracks. (Many PCR assays code for reimbursement <$300, so NGS still has a way to go to win on price.)

NGS, on the other hand will be used for broad discovery and in cases where patients are willing to pay out of their own pocket at least until the economics change, and the FDA approves a platform/assay combo such as Foundation Medicine. I'd say that we're at least 2 years away from that, regardless of error rate.    



Two other NGS points, neither worth a dedicated post for now: now that Oxford Nanopore and LifeTech are both promising ~$1,000 genome from new tech platforms:

-what does the future hold for BGI (Beijing Genomics Institute) that has made a name for itself by buying roomfuls of largely Illumina sequencers? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when someone suggests that they put 10's of millions of dollars of Illumina equipment out to pasture and invest further millions in new GridIon or Ion Torrent equipment.

-will Roche drop their Illumina takeover bid? A ~$6B hostile takeover of the former leader makes less sense now. It will also be interesting to see if ILMN's board changes their mind, and sells now. 

2 comments:

  1. One place where sequencing will likely take hold quickly as a Dx is looking for rare Mendelian disorders. One group working on a test for rare childhood disorders has pointed out that while each disorder is individually rare, the top 200 or so are in aggregate several percent of all live births, and more importantly have a very lopsided share of the hospital admissions and medical spending on young children.

    The economics in this case are pretty strong: go the "House" route of stumbling through various hypotheses until you get the right one, after much patient suffering & many expensive diagnostic tests and hospital admissions, or sweep through the whole set in one go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I totally agree, Keith, especially with the development of the Quake technology. Not sure we're ready for the ethical dilemmas sure to follow, but at least the need and technology are clear.

    ReplyDelete