23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Revised diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1 and Legius syndrome: an international consensus recommendation

      , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , International Consensus Group on Neurofibromatosis Diagnostic Criteria (I-NF-DC)
      Genetics in Medicine
      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          By incorporating major developments in genetics, ophthalmology, dermatology, and neuroimaging, to revise the diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and to establish diagnostic criteria for Legius syndrome (LGSS).

          Methods

          We used a multistep process, beginning with a Delphi method involving global experts and subsequently involving non-NF experts, patients, and foundations/patient advocacy groups.

          Results

          We reached consensus on the minimal clinical and genetic criteria for diagnosing and differentiating NF1 and LGSS, which have phenotypic overlap in young patients with pigmentary findings. Criteria for the mosaic forms of these conditions are also recommended.

          Conclusion

          The revised criteria for NF1 incorporate new clinical features and genetic testing, whereas the criteria for LGSS were created to differentiate the two conditions. It is likely that continued refinement of these new criteria will be necessary as investigators (1) study the diagnostic properties of the revised criteria, (2) reconsider criteria not included in this process, and (3) identify new clinical and other features of these conditions. For this reason, we propose an initiative to update periodically the diagnostic criteria for NF1 and LGSS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          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

          The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            HGVS Recommendations for the Description of Sequence Variants: 2016 Update.

            The consistent and unambiguous description of sequence variants is essential to report and exchange information on the analysis of a genome. In particular, DNA diagnostics critically depends on accurate and standardized description and sharing of the variants detected. The sequence variant nomenclature system proposed in 2000 by the Human Genome Variation Society has been widely adopted and has developed into an internationally accepted standard. The recommendations are currently commissioned through a Sequence Variant Description Working Group (SVD-WG) operating under the auspices of three international organizations: the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS), the Human Variome Project (HVP), and the Human Genome Organization (HUGO). Requests for modifications and extensions go through the SVD-WG following a standard procedure including a community consultation step. Version numbers are assigned to the nomenclature system to allow users to specify the version used in their variant descriptions. Here, we present the current recommendations, HGVS version 15.11, and briefly summarize the changes that were made since the 2000 publication. Most focus has been on removing inconsistencies and tightening definitions allowing automatic data processing. An extensive version of the recommendations is available online, at http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The RASopathies.

              The RASopathies are a clinically defined group of medical genetic syndromes caused by germline mutations in genes that encode components or regulators of the Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. These disorders include neurofibromatosis type 1, Noonan syndrome, Noonan syndrome with multiple lentigines, capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation syndrome, Costello syndrome, cardio-facio-cutaneous syndrome, and Legius syndrome. Because of the common underlying Ras/MAPK pathway dysregulation, the RASopathies exhibit numerous overlapping phenotypic features. The Ras/MAPK pathway plays an essential role in regulating the cell cycle and cellular growth, differentiation, and senescence, all of which are critical to normal development. Therefore, it is not surprising that Ras/MAPK pathway dysregulation has profound deleterious effects on both embryonic and later stages of development. The Ras/MAPK pathway has been well studied in cancer and is an attractive target for small-molecule inhibition to treat various malignancies. The use of these molecules to ameliorate developmental defects in the RASopathies is under consideration.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Genetics in Medicine
                Genet Med
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1098-3600
                1530-0366
                May 19 2021
                Article
                10.1038/s41436-021-01170-5
                98fa9704-80ec-49c6-99a1-aee30abea899
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article