Comparison of The Results of Sponsored Genetic Testing Panels for Inherited Retinal Diseases

Background/Objectives: Gene therapy's emergence has made molecular diagnosis for inherited retinal diseases clinically significant. Free genetic testing panels have improved testing access in clinical practice, yet the interpretation of results, especially variants of unknown significance (VUS), remains challenging and requires expertise. This study shares our experience in utilizing sponsored IRD panel tests by Invitae and Blueprint Genetics (BG), reporting their positivity rates, and comparing their reclassification of variants through amendments. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed genetic test reports from patients who underwent testing via Invitae or BG panels. A positive test was determined if there was a pathogenic mutation in an autosomal dominant gene, two pathogenic mutations in an autosomal recessive gene, or a pathogenic mutation in an X-linked gene in a male patient. Results: The testing positivity rates were 34.9% for Invitae (n = 109) and 42.1% for BG (n = 107). Invitae had more pathogenic variants per report (0.87 vs. 0.58 variants, p = 0.0038) and issued more amendments than BG (0.54 vs. 0.03 amendments; p < 0.01). Of the Invitae variant classification changes, 66.2% switched a VUS to benign. In the BG group, 75% of variant reclassifications changed a VUS to pathogenic. As a result of the Invitae amendments, 88% did not change the overall report result. Conclusions: While free-of-charge genetic testing panels offer valuable insights for diagnosing IRD, limitations such as low diagnostic yield and variant classification discrepancies persist between Invitae and BG. VUS should not be considered pathogenic in the clinical decision-making process. Careful interpretation of genetic testing is required.