Medical Policy: 02.04.50 

Original Effective Date: April 2015 

Reviewed: March 2017 

Revised: March 2017 

 

Benefit Application:

Benefit determinations are based on the applicable contract language in effect at the time the services were rendered. Exclusions, limitations or exceptions may apply. Benefits may vary based on contract, and individual member benefits must be verified. Wellmark determines medical necessity only if the benefit exists and no contract exclusions are applicable. This medical policy may not apply to FEP. Benefits are determined by the Federal Employee Program.

 

This Medical Policy document describes the status of medical technology at the time the document was developed. Since that time, new technology may have emerged or new medical literature may have been published. This Medical Policy will be reviewed regularly and be updated as scientific and medical literature becomes available.

 

Description:

Whole Exome Sequencing

The evolution of next generation sequencing has spurred the development of tests that sequence multiple genes simultaneously. Whole exome sequencing (WES) consists of analysis of the protein-coding regions of the human genome, and are referred to as “exons”.  The exome comprises about 1% of the genome and is, so far, the component most likely to include interpretable mutations that result in clinical phenotypes. Whole exome sequencing involves determination of the DNA sequence of most of these protein-encoding exons and may include some DNA regions that encode RNA molecules that are not involved in protein synthesis. Exome testing or analysis may be targeted to particular genes of clinical interest for a given application.

 

WES has been proposed in patients presenting with certain disorders or anomalies that have not been explained by a standard clinical workup (chromosomal microarray analysis, chromosomal karyotype, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), metabolic testing, imaging, single gene tests, referrals to other specialists), and may be left without a clinical diagnosis despite a lengthy diagnostic workup (prolonged diagnostic odyssey). For a portion of these patients, WES may return a likely pathogenic variant. Determining genetic causality of disease and establishing a molecular diagnosis in clinical practice can: confirm a suspected or established clinical diagnosis; inform prognosis; aid in selecting treatment, surveillance or preventative options; reveal mode of inheritance; identify carrier/risk status of family members; and/or guide research regarding new therapies or patient management. WES is most commonly performed in tertiary medical centers under the care of large multidisciplinary teams.

 

American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics issued a policy statement regarding the use of genomic testing that recommends testing be considered in phenotypically affected individual when:

  • The phenotype or family history data strongly implicates a genetic etiology, but the phenotype does not correspond with a specific disorder for which a genetic test targeting a specific gene is available on a clinical basis.
  • A patient presents with a defined genetic disorder that demonstrates a high degree of genetic heterogeneity, making WES or WGS analysis of multiple genes simultaneously a more practical approach.
  • A patient presents with a likely genetic disorder in which specific genetic tests available for that phenotype have failed to arrive at a diagnosis.

One of the most complex issues surrounding genomic testing is the risk of incidental or secondary finding, where mutations unrelated to the clinical phenotype or variants of uncertain significance are identified. While incidental identification of clinically significant mutations pose issues of informed consent, these findings often have medical management recommendations. However, even among the 56 genes recommended for the reporting of incidental findings by the ACMG, there are challenges in determining phenotype consequences of variants identified. Experts agree that the involvement of trained genetics professionals in consulting with patients and families are essential prior to and after ordering and completing genetic testing. 

 

Multiple Congenital Anomalies and Neurodevelopmental Disorders 

For individuals who have multiple unexplained congenital anomalies or a neurodevelopment phenotype who receive whole exome sequencing (WES), the evidence includes large case series and a within subject comparison. Patients who have multiple congenital anomalies or a neurodevelopment disorder with a suspected genetic etiology, but the specific alteration is unclear or unidentified by a standard clinical workup, may be left without a clinical diagnosis of their disorder, despite a lengthy clinical workup. For a portion of these patients, WES may return a likely pathogenic variant. Several large and smaller series have reported diagnostic yields of WES ranging from 25% to 60%, depending on the individual’s age, phenotype, and previous workup. One comparative study found a 44% increase in yield compared with standard testing strategies. Many of the studies have also reported changes in patient management, including medication changes, discontinuation of or additional testing, ending the diagnostic odyssey and family planning. The evidence is sufficient to determine that this testing results in meaningful improvement in the net health outcome for multiple congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders.

 

Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 1-1.5% of the world’s population and is more commonly diagnosed in children than adults. Epilepsy is often accompanied by cognitive and developmental delay. A detailed family history is mandatory as a family history of seizures may suggest a dominantly inherited epileptic disorder. If a genetic disorder is suspected as the cause of epilepsy or seizure disorder a timely diagnosis may reduce overall cost, limit the diagnostic odyssey, improve prognostication and lead to targeted therapy. Genetic counseling should be available to these patients, and the genetic evaluation should be undertaken at a tertiary level of care. Generally, genetic testing is not recommended in drug responsive epilepsy/seizure disorder or at epilepsy/seizure onset, although genomic hybridization (CHG – karyotype, FISH, CMA) and single gene sequencing can be used as first tier evaluation of patients with global developmental delay, which is a population that is at higher risk of epilepsy/seizure disorders.

 

Patients who have seizure or epilepsy disorder with a suspected genetic etiology, which is unclear or unidentified by standard clinical workup, may be left without a clinical diagnosis of their disorder and for a portion of these patients, WES may return a likely pathogenic variant. In common application, WES results may vary; one retrospective study reported 14.3% diagnosis based on WES in treatment-resistant pediatric epilepsy, and another reported 27% yield for patients with a variety of neurodevelopmental conditions, including epilepsy. For the most useful interpretation of a patient’s WES, it is preferable to also obtain testing from both biological parents to allow identification of de novo variants, which are more likely to be disease causing than variants inherited from unaffected parents. Studies have also reported changes in patient management, including medication changes, discontinuation of or additional testing, ending the diagnostic odyssey and family planning. The evidence is sufficient to determine that this testing results in meaningful improvement in the net health outcome for epilepsy/seizure disorders.     

 

Genetic Disorders Other Than Multiple Congenital Anomalies, Neurodevelopmental Disorders or Epilepsy/Seizure Disorders

For individuals who have a suspected genetic disorder other than multiple congenital anomalies, neurodevelopmental disorders or epilepsy/seizure disorders who receive WES, the peer reviewed medical literature is limited and includes small case series. Relevant outcomes are test accuracy and validity, functional outcomes, changes in reproductive decision making, and resource utilization. Additional studies are needed to evaluate WES for other genetic disorders that includes diagnostic yield compared to standard clinical work up. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes for all other suspected genetic disorders. 

 

Whole Genome Sequencing

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) consists of analysis of most of the DNA content in an individual’s genome. WGS has been used as a tool to establish a diagnosis in individuals with exceptionally complex and severe phenotypes and has also been used in the oncology setting to characterize tumor genomes. WGS is most commonly performed in tertiary medical centers under the care of large multidisciplinary teams, with a large research component significantly contributing to the diagnosis and evaluation process. High-quality clinical trial data are lacking in the published peer reviewed medical literature to inform on the use and effectiveness of whole genome sequencing in routine clinical practice. At this time the clinical utility of this testing to impact clinical management and improve health outcomes has not been established.

 

Genetic Counseling

Due to the likelihood of the discovery of a variant of uncertain significance or other incidental findings, pre-and-post genetic counseling for any individual undergoing WES is required. This recommendation is consistently and widely published by multiple professional societies and experts. Genetic counseling by an independent provider can reduce unnecessary use of this test.

 

Genetic counseling is defined as the process of helping an individual understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial indications of genetic contributions to disease. Genetic counseling is recommended in both pre-and-post genetic testing to interpret family and medical histories to assess the change of disease occurrence and recurrence, educate regarding inheritance, testing, management prevention and resources and counsel to promote informed choices and adaption to risk or condition.

 

A variety of genetics professionals provide these services: Board-Certified or Board-Eligible Medical Geneticists, and American Board of Medical Genetics or American Board of Genetic Counseling-certified Genetic Counselor, and genetic nurses credentialed as either a Geneteic Clinical Nurse (GCN) or an Advanced-Practice Nurse in Genetics (APGN) by either the Genetic Nursing Credentialing Commission (GCNN) or the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC). Individuals should not be employed by a commercial genetic testing laboratory unless they are employed by or contracted with a laboratory that is part of an integral Health System which routinely delivers health care services beyond just the laboratory test itself. 

 

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

In 2012, The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) issued a policy statement, Points to Consider in the Clinical Applications of Genomic Sequencing, which states that diagnostic testing with WES/WGS should be considered in the clinical diagnostic assessment of phenotypically affected individual when:

  • The phenotype or family history data strongly implicate a genetic etiology, but the phenotype does not correspond with a specified disorder for which a genetic test targeting a specific gene is available on a clinical basis.
  • A patient presents with a defined genetic disorder that demonstrates a high degree of genetic heterogeneity, making WES or WGS analysis of multiple genes simultaneously a more practical approach.
  • A patient presents with a likely genetic disorder but specific genetic tests available for that phenotype have failed to arrive at a diagnosis.
  • A fetus with a likely genetic disorder in which specific genetic tests, including targeted sequencing tests, available for that phenotype have failed to arrive at a diagnosis.
    • Prenatal diagnosis by genomic (i.e. next generation whole exome or whole genome) sequencing has significant limitations. The current technology does not support short turn around times which are often expected in the prenatal setting. There are high false positive, false negative, and variants of unknown clinical significance rates. These can be expected to be significantly higher than seen when array CGH is used in prenatal diagnosis.

Pre-Test Considerations

  • Pre-test counseling should be done by a medical geneticist or an affiliated genetic counselor and should include a formal consent process.

Post-Test Consideration

  • Genetic services and other appropriate specialist interventions associated with clinically relevant results should be available and accessible to those tested.

Genetic Screening

  • WES/WGS should not be used at this time as an approach to prenatal screening.
  • WES/WGS should not be used as a first-tier approach for newborn screening.
  • WES/WGS may be considered in preconception carrier screening, using a strategy to focus on genetic variants known to be associated with significant phenotypes in homozygous and hemizygous progeny. In view of the long turnaround times and interpretive complexities currently associated with this technology, preconception carrier screening is strongly favored over post-conception screening. 
  • Asymptomatic individuals interested in WES/WGS for purposes of health screening should receive both pre-test and post-test counseling from a trained medical geneticist and/or affiliated genetic counselor. They should be informed of the potential risks and benefits of such testing and the virtual certainty of finding variants of uncertain significance. The threshold for determining which results should be returned to individuals seeking screening should be set significantly higher than that set for diagnostic testing due to the much lower a priori chance of disease in such individuals.

    

In 2013, ACMG board issued their recommendation for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. A working group determined that reporting some incidental findings would likely have medical benefit for the patients and families of patients undergoing clinical sequencing and recommended that when a report is issued for clinically indicated exome and genome sequencing, a minimum list of conditions, genes, and variants should be routinely evaluated and reported to the ordering clinician.

 

In 2015, ACMG issued a position statement on the clinical utility of genetic and genomic services which states: “We submit that the clinical utility of genetic testing should take into account effects on diagnostic or therapeutic management, implications for prognosis, health and psychological benefits to patients and their relatives. We believe that clinical utility must also take into account the value a diagnosis can bring to the individual, the family and society in general".

 

“ACMG believes there is great clinical value in arriving at a precise medical diagnosis, enabling, among other things, identification of a disorder’s cause and prognosis, as well as frequently informing preventative and treatment modalities. ACMG considers the following to be important clinical utilities related to genetic/genomic information”.

 

Clinical Utility for Individual Patients

  • Situations in which definitive diagnosis specifically informs causality, prognosis, and treatment.
  • Newborn screening for conditions recommended by the Secretary’s Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders of Newborns and Children.
  • The discovery of medically actionable secondary findings in the course of genomic testing that have associated treatments that improve/affect outcome. 

Clinical Utility for Families

  • Enables at-risk family members to obtain testing to determine whether they carry a causative mutation, offering the possibility for early intervention. This clinical utility is independent of whether the affected family member has benefited directly from this diagnosis.
  • Enables specific and informed reproductive decision making and family planning.
  • Brings resolution to the costly (in terms of both psychosocial and financial contexts) and wasteful (for the medical system at large) diagnostic odyssey that is often pursued in a quest to establish a diagnosis. There are countless examples of economic and psychological costs to the health-care system and to patients and families during the quest to obtain a diagnosis.
  • Enables involvement in disease support groups and other types of social support groups and other types of social support for families.

“Not only can genetic testing inform genetic risks in other family members, but testing of other family members can sometimes/often inform the interpretation of results in a patient. For example, information regarding whether a candidate variant is de novo or inherited provides powerful evidence of its potential pathogenicity, thereby giving the finding utility in other family members. Genome-scale testing of parents and patient (trio testing) also reduces the number of variants that have to be considered as causative, thereby facilitating better interpretation of testing results and minimizing reporting of costly (in terms of both patient well-being and economic terms) false-positive results.”

 

Prenatal and Preimplantation Whole Exome Sequencing and Whole Genome Sequencing

Prenatal diagnosis by genomics (i.e. next generation whole exome or whole genome) sequencing has significant limitations. The current technology does not support short turnaround times which are often expected in the prenatal setting. There are high false positive, false negative, and variants of unknown clinical significance rates. These rates can be expected to be significantly higher than seen when array comparative genomic hybridization is used in prenatal diagnosis. Published literature on the use of next generation whole exome and whole genome testing in the invasive prenatal setting is lacking. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on health outcomes.

 

Preimplantation genetic testing involves analysis of biopsied cells as part of an assisted reproductive procedure. It is generally considered to be divided into two categories. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used to detect a specific inherited disorder and aims to prevent the birth of affected children to couples at high risk of transmitting a disorder. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) involves testing for potential genetic abnormalities in conjunction with in vitro fertilization for couples without a specific known inherited disorder.

 

The biopsy material can be analyzed in variety of ways:

  • Polymerase chain reaction or other amplification techniques can be used to amplify the harvested DNA with subsequent analysis for single genetic defects. This technique is most commonly used when the embryo is at risk for a specific genetic disorder such as Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis.
  • Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) is a technique that allows visualization of specific (but not all) chromosomes to determine the number or absence of chromosomes. This technique is most commonly used to screen for aneuploidy, sex determination, or to identify chromosomal translocations. FISH cannot be used to diagnose single genetic defect disorders. However, molecular techniques can be applied with FISH (e.g. microdeletions, duplications) and, thus single gene defects can be recognized with this technique. Another approach becoming more common is array comparative genome hybridization testing at either the 8-cell or, more often, the blastocyst stage. Unlike FISH analysis, this allows for 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening, as well as more detailed screening for unbalanced translocations and inversions and other types of abnormal gains and losses of chromosomal material.
  • Next generation sequencing to include whole exome and whole genome sequencing has potential applications, but these techniques are being actively studied and is in a relatively early stage of development compared with other methods of analyzing biopsied material. Further well conducted randomized clinical trials are needed before conclusions can be drawn about the impact on the net health benefit. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes.                  
     

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a 2007 practice committee opinion that concluded that available evidence did not support the use of PGS as currently performed to improve live birth rates in patients with advanced maternal age, previous implantation failure, or recurrent pregnancy loss, or to reduce miscarriage rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss related to aneuploidy.

 

In 2009 (reaffirmed 2014), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued an opinion on PGS for aneuploidy. They stated that current data do not support the use of PGS to screen for aneuploidy due solely to maternal age. ACOG also did not recommend PGS for recurrent unexplained miscarriage and recurrent implantation failures in the clinical setting; they recommended that use be limited to research studies.

 

In 2017, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a practice bulletin for prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders that retains the recommendation from practice bulletins No. 77 and 88 that all women should be offered diagnostic testing regardless of maternal age or other risk factors. Testing within this recommendation includes the following: chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD. Pretest and post-test genetic counseling is
recommended.  

 

Regulatory Status

Clinical laboratories may develop and validate tests in-house and market them as a laboratory service; laboratory developed tests (LDTs) must meet the general regulatory standards of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Exome or genome sequencing tests as a clinical service are available under the auspices of CLIA. Laboratories that offer LDTs must be licensed by CLIA for high complexity testing. To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has chosen not to require any regulatory review of this test.   

 

Prior Approval:

 

Not applicable.

 

Policy:

Whole Exome Sequencing (81415, 81416, 81417)

Whole exome sequencing (WES) may be considered medically necessary for the evaluation of unexplained neurodevelopmental disorder, or multiple congenital anomalies, or epilepsy/seizure disorder in children when ALL of the following criteria are met:

  • A genetic etiology is considered the most likely explanation for the phenotype despite previous genetic testing (e.g. comparative genomic hybridization (CGH);  chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA); karyotyping analysis; FISH (fluorescence in-situ hybridization) analysis; and targeted single gene testing) that failed to yield a diagnosis; AND
  • The WES (whole exome sequencing) results will directly impact clinical decision making and clinical outcome for the individual being tested (this testing will guide treatment decisions, surveillance recommendations or preventative strategies); AND
  • The test is ordered by a board certified genetic counselor or board certified medical geneticist or other board certified physician with expertise in clinical genetics; AND
  • The individual has been evaluated by a board certified genetic counselor or board certified medical geneticist or other board certified physician with expertise in clinical genetics with specific expertise in the conditions and relevant genetics for which testing is being considered; AND
  • Genetic counseling has been completed by a board certified genetic counselor or board certified medical geneticist or other board certified physician with expertise in clinical genetics; AND
  • There are no other causative circumstances (e.g. environmental exposures, injury, infection) that can explain the symptoms; AND
  • WES (whole exome sequencing) results may preclude the need for multiple and/or invasive procedures (e.g. muscle biopsy) that would be recommended in the absence of this testing.  

Required Documentation: The individual’s medical records must reflect the medical necessity for the care provided. The medical record should include, but are not limited to: records from health care professionals office, test reports to include all prior genetic testing and results as indicated above, how the testing will directly impact clinical decision making and clinical outcome for the individual being tested, the results will preclude the further need for multiple and/or invasive testing and the records support the individual(s) being tested have received genetic counseling, to include that they have also been evaluated and the test was ordered by a board certified genetic counselor or board certified medical geneticist or other board certified physician with expertise in clinical genetics.     

 

Repeat testing for whole exome sequencing (WES) for the above indications is considered not medically necessary.

 

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is considered investigational for the diagnosis of genetic disorders for all other indications, except as described above due to the lack of clinical evidence demonstrating an impact on improved health outcomes.

 

Whole Genome Sequencing (81425, 81426, 81427

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is considered investigational for the diagnosis of genetic disorders.

 

WGS has been used as a tool to establish a diagnosis in individuals with exceptionally complex and severe phenotypes. WGS is most commonly performed in tertiary medical centers under the care of large multidisciplinary teams, with a large research component significantly contributing to the diagnosis and evaluation process. High-quality clinical trial data are lacking in the published peer reviewed medical literature to inform on the use and effectiveness of whole genome sequencing in routine clinical practice. At this time the clinical utility of this testing to impact clinical management and improve health outcomes has not been established.

 

Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing for Screening for Genetic Disorders in Asymptomatic Individuals (81415, 81416, 81417, 81425, 81426, 81427)

Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are considered investigational for screening asymptomatic individuals for genetic disorders. There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion concerning the health outcomes or benefits associated with this testing for this indication.   

 

Prenatal and Preimplantation Testing Genome Sequencing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) (i.e. NGS- next generation genome sequencing) for prenatal diagnosis or preimplantation testing of an embryo for the screening or diagnosis of genetic disorders is considered investigational.

 

Prenatal and preimplantation diagnosis and screening by genomics (i.e. next generation whole exome or whole genome) sequencing has significant limitations. Current technology does not support short turnaround times which is often expected in the prenatal setting. There are also false positive, false negative and variants of unknown clinical significance. The peer reviewed medical literature is lacking on the use of whole exome and whole genome sequence testing in the invasive prenatal and preimplantation setting. Further well conducted randomized clinical trials are needed to also include the diagnostic yield compared to standard clinical workup before conclusions can be drawn about the impact on the net health benefit. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes.    

 

 

Policy Guidelines and Definitions

Genetic Counseling

Genetic counseling is primarily aimed at patients who are at risk for inherited disorders, and experts recommend formal genetic counseling in most cases when getting testing for inherited conditions is considered. The interpretation of results of genetic tests and understanding of risk factors can be very difficult and complex. Therefore, genetic counseling will assist individuals in understanding the possible benefits and harms of genetic testing, including the possible impact of the information on the individual’s family. Genetic counseling may alter the utilization of genetic testing substantially and may reduce inappropriate testing. Genetic counseling should be performed by an individual with experience and expertise in genetic medicine and genetic testing methods.

 

A variety of genetics professionals provide these services: Board-Certified or Board-Eligible Medical Geneticists, and American Board of Medical Genetics or American Board of Genetic Counseling-certified Genetic Counselor, and genetic nurses credentialed as either a Geneteic Clinical Nurse (GCN) or an Advanced-Practice Nurse in Genetics (APGN) by either the Genetic Nursing Credentialing Commission (GCNN) or the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC).

 

Trio Testing

Analysis of the individual’s exome with comparative evaluation of the exons of two close relatives – typically both parents.  

 

Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Is a precise genetic or acquired biological brain disorder or condition that is responsible for childhood onset brain dysfunction. It may result in developmental differences manifested as cognitive dysfunction, behavioral problems, and/or motor dysfunction.    

 

Congenital Disorder

Congenital disorder is also known as birth defects, congenital anomalies or congenital malformations. Congenital disorder can be defined as structural or functional anomalies that occur during intrauterine life and can be identified prenatally, at birth or sometimes may only be detected later in infancy.

 

Screening Genetic Testing

Systematic program offered to a specified population of asymptomatic individuals to make a risk estimate regarding an inherited predisposition to disease, to detect an inherited disease at an early stage, or make a risk estimate regarding the possibility of transmitting a disease to offspring, for the purpose of disease prevention, early treatment or family planning.

 

Diagnostic Genetic Testing

Performed in symptomatic individuals and the genetic testing may be the method used to identify, confirm or rule out a condition in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms. The confirmatory evidence should then assist with therapeutic interventions. 

 

Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA)

Allows for identification of very small deletions or duplications of chromosomes.

 

Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH)

Is a technique that allows the detection of losses and gains of DNA copy number across the entire genome.

 

Karyotype

Is a laboratory technique that produces an image of an individual’s chromosomes. The karyotype is used to look for abnormal numbers or structures of chromosomes.   

 

Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization (FISH)

FISH is a test that maps the genetic material in human cells, including specific genes of portion of genes. FISH uses a protein, called a probe, to “stick” to known sequence of DNA (usually a known mutation). If that sequence is present in a patient’s sample, the probe will bind to it and light up under a fluorescent microscope. FISH also can be used to detect chromosome rearrangements, marker chromosomes (extra pieces of unidentified chromosomal material), and duplications or deletions of large pieces of DNA.

 

Procedure Codes and Billing Guidelines:

  • To report provider services, use appropriate CPT* codes, Alpha Numeric (HCPCS level 2) codes, Revenue codes, and/or diagnosis codes.
  • 81415 Exome (eg, unexplained constitutional or heritable disorder or syndrome); sequence analysis
  • 81416 Sequence analysis, each comparator exome (eg parents, siblings) (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
  • 81417 Re-evaluation of previously obtained exome sequence (eg updated knowledge or unrelated condition/syndrome)
  • 81425 Genome (eg unexplained constitutional or heritable disorder or syndrome) sequence analysis
  • 81426 Sequence analysis, each comparator genome (eg, parents, siblings) (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
  • 81427 Re-evaluation of previously obtained genome sequencing (eg updated knowledge or unrelated condition/syndrome)
  • 81479 Unlisted molecular pathology  (when utilized for next generation genome or exome sequencing for prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing)

 

Selected References:

  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Special Report: Exome Sequencing for Clinical Diagnosis of Patients with Suspected Genetic Disorders. Volume 28, Tab 3.
  • Dixon-Salazar TJ, Shilhavy JL, upda N, et al. Exome Sequencing can improve diagnosis and alter patient management. Sci Transl Med. Jun 13 2012;4(138)ra178.
  • Ayuso C, Millan JM, Mancheno M, et al. Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. Eur J Hum Genet. Oct 2013;21(10):1054-1059
  • Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med. Apr 2012;14(4):393-398
  • De Ligt J, Boone PM, Pfundt R, et al. Detection of clinically relevant copy number variants with whole exome sequencing. Hum Mutat. Oct 2013;34(10):1439-1448
  • Dewey FE, Grove ME, Pan C, et al. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole genome sequencing. JAMA Mar 12 2014;311(10):1035-1045
  • Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing, Genet Med Jul 2013;15(7):565-574
  • American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Policy Statement: Points to Consider in the Clinical Application of Genomic Sequencing. May 15, 2012
  • Bamshad MJ, Ng SB, Bigham AW, et al. Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery. Nat Rev Genet Nove 2011;12(11):745-755
  • Jiang YH, Yen RK, Jin X, et al. Detection of clinical relevant genetic variants in autism spectrum disorder by whole genome sequencing. AM J Hum Genet. August 8, 2013;93(2):249-263
  • Yang Y, Muzny DM, Reid JG, et al. Clinical whole exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders N Engl J Med. Oct 17 2013;369(16):1502-1511
  • Dixon-Salazar TJ, Silhavy JL, Udpa N, et al. Exome sequencing can improve diagnosis and alter patient management. Sci Transl Med. Jun 13 2012;4(138):138ra178. PMID 22700954
  • McLaughlin HM, Ceyhan-Birsoy O, Christensen KD, et al. A systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing. BMC Med Genet. 2014;15:134. PMID 25714468
  • Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med. Apr 2012;14(4):393-398. PMID 22344227
  • Rehm HL, Bale SJ, Bayrak-Toydemir P, et al. ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med. Sep 2013;15(9):733-747. PMID 23887774
  • Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. 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. May 2015;17(5):405-424. PMID 25741868
  • Greenway SC, McLeod R, Hume S, et al. Exome sequencing identifies a novel variant in ACTC1 associated with familial atrial septal defect. Can J Cardiol. Feb 2014;30(2):181-187. PMID 24461919
  • Jiang YH, Yuen RK, Jin X, et al. Detection of clinically relevant genetic variants in autism spectrum disorder by whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet. Aug 8 2013;93(2):249-263. PMID 23849776
  • Kim HJ, Won HH, Park KJ, et al. SNP linkage analysis and whole exome sequencing identify a novel POU4F3 mutation in autosomal dominant late-onset nonsyndromic hearing loss (DFNA15). PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79063. PMID 24260153
  • Weeke P, Mosley JD, Hanna D, et al. Exome sequencing implicates an increased burden of rare potassium channel variants in the risk of drug-induced long QT interval syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. Apr 15 2014;63(14):1430-1437. PMID 24561134
  • Zhou Q, Yang D, Ombrello AK, et al. Early-onset stroke and vasculopathy associated with mutations in ADA2. N Engl J Med. Mar 6 2014;370(10):911-920. PMID 24552284
  • Lee H, Deignan JL, Dorrani N, et al. Clinical exome sequencing for genetic identification of rare Mendelian disorders. JAMA. Nov 12 2014;312(18):1880-1887. PMID 25326637
  • Yang Y, Muzny DM, Xia F, et al. Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA. Nov 12 2014;312(18):1870-1879. PMID 25326635 
  • Tammimies K, Marshall CR, Walker S, et al. Molecular diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis and whole-exome sequencing in children with autism spectrum disorder. JAMA. Sep 1 2015;314(9):895-903. PMID 26325558
  • Taylor JC, Martin HC, Lise S, et al. Factors influencing success of clinical genome sequencing across a broad spectrum of disorders. Nat Genet. Jul 2015;47(7):717-726. PMID 25985138
  • Golbus JR, Puckelwartz MJ, Dellefave-Castillo L, et al. Targeted analysis of whole genome sequence data to diagnose genetic cardiomyopathy. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. Dec 2014;7(6):751-759. PMID 25179549
  • Soden SE, Saunders CJ, Willig LK, et al. Effectiveness of exome and genome sequencing guided by acuity of illness for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders. Sci Transl Med. Dec 3 2014;6(265):265ra168. PMID 25473036
  • Srivastava S, Cohen JS, Vernon H, et al. Clinical whole exome sequencing in child neurology practice. Ann Neurol. Oct 2014;76(4):473-483. PMID 25131622
  • Iglesias A, Anyane-Yeboa K, Wynn J, et al. The usefulness of whole-exome sequencing in routine clinical practice. Genet Med. Dec 2014;16(12):922-931. PMID 24901346
  • Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. Jul 2013;15(7):565-574. PMID 23788249
  • Taylor J, Martin H, Lise S, et.al. Factors influencing success of clinical genome sequencing across a broad spectrum of disorders. Nat Genet. 2015 July; 47(7): 717-726
  • Yang Y, Muzny D, Reid J, et.al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders, N Engl J Med 2013 October 17;369(16): 1502-1511
  • Richards S, Aziz N, Bale Sherri, et.al. Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and Association of Molecular Pathology, Genet Med. 2015 May 17(5): 405-424
  • Dewey F, Grove M, Cuiping P, et. al. Clinical Interpretation and Implications of Whole Genome Sequencing. JAMA 2014 March 12; 311(10): 1035-1045
  • Rehm H, Bale Sherri, Bayrak-Toydemir P, et.al. ACMG Clinical Laboratory Standards for Next Generation Sequencing. Genet Med 2013 September; 15(9): 733-747
  • Allen NM, Conroy J, Shahwan A, et. al. Unexplained early onset epileptic encephalopathy: Exome screening and phenotype expansion. Epilepsia Jan 2016;57(1):e12-17. PMID 26648591
  • Farwell KD, Shahmirzadi L, El-Khechan D, et. al. Enhanced utility of family-centered diagnostic exome sequencing with inheritance model-based analysis: results from 500 families with undiagnosed genetic conditions. Genet Med Jul 2015;17(7):578-586. PMID 25356970
  • Nolan D, Carlson M. Whole exome sequencing in pediatric neurology patients: clinical implications and estimated cost analysis. J Child Neurol. Jun 2016;31(7):887-894. PMID 26863999
  • Stark Z, Tan TY, Chong B, et. al. A prospective evaluation of whole exome sequencing as a first tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders. Genet Med. Nov 2016;18(11):1090-1096. PMID 26938784
  • Ghaoui R, Cooper ST, Lek M, et. al. Use of whole exome sequencing for diagnosis of limb-girdle muscular dystrophy: outcomes and lessions learned . JAMA Neurol. Dec 2015. Dec 2015;72(12):1424-1432. PMID 26436962
  • Ellinford JM, Barton S, Bhaskar S, et. al. Whole genome sequencing increases molecular diagnostic yield compared with current diagnostic testing for inherited retinal disease. Ophthalmology May 2016;123(5):1143-1150. PMID 26872967
  • Posey JE, Rosenfeld JA, James RA, et. al. Molecular diagnostic experience of whole exome sequencing in adult patients. Genet Med July 2016;18(7):678-685. PMID 26633545
  • Valencia CA, Husami A, Holle J, et. al. Clinical impact and cost effectiveness of whole exome sequencing as a diagnostic tool: a pediatric center’s experience, Front Pediatr 2015;3:67. PMID 26284228
  • Wortmann SB, Koolen DA, Smeitink JA, et. al. Whole exome sequencing of suspcted mitochondrial patients in clinical practice. J Inherit Metab Dis. May 2015;38(3):437-443. PMID 25735936
  • Narayanaswami P, Weiss M, Selcen D, et. al. Evidence based guideline summary: diagnosis and treatment of limb girdle and distal dystrophies: report of the guideline development subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the practice issues review panel of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Neurology Oct 14 2014;83(16):1453-1463. PMID 25313375
  • American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Clinical Utility of Genetic and Genomic Services: A Position Statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine Volume 17, Number 6 June 2015.
  • Moeschler J, Shevell M. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Child with Intellectual Disability or Global Developmental Delays. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics Volume 134 Number 3 September 2014.
  • Johansen Taber KA, Dickinson BD, Wilson M. The promise and challenge of next generation genome sequencing for clinical care. JAMA Inter Med Volume 174, Number 2 February 2014
  • Ream M, Patel A. Obtaining genetic testing in pediatric elilepsy. Epilepsia 56(10):1505-1514 2015
  • UpToDate. Principles and Clinical Applications of Next-Generation DNA Sequencing. Peter J. Hulick M.D., MMSc, FACMG. Topic last upated July 18, 2016.
  • UpToDate. Intellectual Disability in Children: Evaluation for a Cause. Penelope Pivalizza M.D., Seema R. Lalani M.D. Topic last updated May 26, 2016.
  • UpToDate. Birth Defects: Approach to Evaluation. Carlos A. Bacino M.D., FACMG. Topic last updated December 19, 2016.
  • UpToDate. Prenatal Genetic Evaluation of the Anomalous Fetus. Neeta Vora M.D., Sarah Harris MS, CGC. Topic last updated November 30, 2016.
  • UpToDate. Clinical and Laboratory Diagnosis of Seizures in Infants and Children. Angus Wilfong M.D., Topic last updated August 22, 2016.
  • UpToDate. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Glenn L Schattman M.D. Topic last updated November 18, 2016.
  • Wapner RJ, Levy B. The impact of new genomic technologies in reproductive medicine. Discov Med. Jun 2014;17996):313-318. PMID 24979251
  • Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, et. al. Evaluation of targeted next generation sequencing based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fetil Steril. Apr 2013;99(5):3177-1384 e1376. PMID 23312231
  • Martin J, Cervero A, Mir P, et. al. The impact of next generation sequencing technology on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril. Mar 15 2013;99(4):1054-1061 e1053. PMID 23499002
  • American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation Genetic Testing: A Practice Committee Opinion. Fertil Steril 2008 Nov:90(5 Suppl):S136-43. PMID 19007612
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee Opinion No. 430. Preimplantation Genetic Screening for Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. Mar 2009, reaffirmed 2014;113(3):766-767. PMID 19300349
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletin No. 162 New Prenatal Testing Guidelines for Genetic Disorders. April 2016
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee Opinion Number 690 March 2017

 

Policy History:

  • March 2017 - Annual Review, Policy Revised
  • March 2016 - Annual Review, Policy Renewed
  • April 2015 - New Policy

Wellmark medical policies address the complex issue of technology assessment of new and emerging treatments, devices, drugs, etc.   They are developed to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. Wellmark medical policies contain only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and do not constitute a contract. Wellmark does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Wellmark or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. Our medical policies may be updated and therefore are subject to change without notice.

 

*CPT® is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association.