Growth charts for Marfan syndrome in the Netherlands and analysis of genotype-phenotype relationships.

To optimize care for children with Marfan syndrome (MFS) in the Netherlands, Dutch MFS growth charts were constructed. Additionally, we aimed to investigate the effect of FBN1 variant type (haploinsufficiency [HI]/dominant negative [DN]) on growth, and compare MFS-related height increase across populations. Height and weight data of individuals with MFS aged 0-21 years were retrospectively collected. Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS) was used for growth chart modeling. To investigate genotype-phenotype relationships, FBN1 variant type was included as an independent variable in height-for-age and BMI-for-age models. MFS-related height increase was compared with that of previous MFS growth studies from the United States, Korea, and France. Height and weight data of 389 individuals with MFS were included (210 males). Height-for-age, BMI-for-age, and weight-for-height charts reflected the tall and slender MFS habitus throughout childhood. Mean increase in height of individuals with MFS compared with the general Dutch population was significantly lower than in the other three MFS populations compared to their reference populations. FBN1-HI variants were associated with taller height in both sexes, and decreased BMI in females (p-values <0.05). This Dutch MFS growth study broadens the notion that genetic background and MFS variant type (HI/DN) influence tall and slender stature in MFS.

Genetic control of tumor development in malformation syndromes.

One of the questions that arises frequently when caring for an individual with a malformation syndrome, is whether some form of tumor surveillance is indicated. In some syndromes there is a highly variable increased risk to develop tumors, while in others this is not the case. The risks can be hard to predict and difficult to explain to affected individuals and their families, and often also to caregivers. The queries arise especially if syndrome causing mutations are also known to occur in tumors. It needs insight in the mechanisms to understand and explain differences of tumor occurrence, and to offer optimal care to individuals with syndromes. Here we provide a short overview of the major mechanisms of the control for tumor occurrences in malformation syndromes.

Multiple tumors due to mosaic genome-wide paternal uniparental disomy.

Mosaic genome-wide paternal uniparental disomy is an infrequently described disorder in which affected individuals have signs and symptoms that may resemble Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. In addition, they can develop multiple benign and malignant tumors throughout life. Routine molecular diagnostics may not detect the (characteristic) low level of mosaicism, and the diagnosis is likely to be missed. Genetic counseling and a life-long alertness for the development of tumors is indicated. We describe the long diagnostic process of a patient who already had a tumor at birth and developed multiple tumors in childhood and adulthood. Furthermore, we offer clues to recognize the entity.

Consequences of diagnosing a tumor predisposition syndrome in children with cancer: A literature review.

Up to 8.5% of children with cancer have a genetic cause for their cancer: a tumor predisposition syndrome (TPS). Diagnosing a TPS is of great importance, as it may have major consequences for clinical care. Patients with TPSs require specific monitoring and management. We present an overview of the cancer-related and noncancer-related consequences for the 36 most common TPSs.

No Pathogenic DICER1 Gene Variants in a Cohort Study of 28 Children With Congenital Pulmonary Airway Malformation.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing congenital pulmonary airway malformations (CPAMs) from pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) can be challenging. Previously diagnosed patients with CPAM may have been misdiagnosed and we may have missed DICER1-associated PPBs, a diagnosis with important clinical implications for patients and their families. To gain insight in potential misdiagnoses, we systematically assessed somatic DICER1 gene mutation status in an unselected, retrospective cohort of patients with a CPAM diagnosis. METHODS: In the Amsterdam University Medical Center (the Netherlands), it has been standard policy to resect CPAM lesions. We included all consecutive cases of children (age 0-18 years) with a diagnosis of CPAM between 2007 and 2017 at this center. Clinical and radiographic features were reviewed, and DICER1 gene sequencing was performed on DNA retrieved from CPAM tissue samples. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with a surgically removed CPAM were included. CPAM type 1 and type 2 were the most common subtypes (n = 12 and n = 13). For 21 patients a chest CT scan was available for reassessment by two pediatric radiologists. In 9 patients (9/21, 43%) the CPAM subtype scored by the radiologists did not correspond with the subtype given at pathology assessment. No pathogenic mutations and no copy number variations of the DICER1 gene were found in the DNA extracted from CPAM tissue (0/28). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the initial CPAM diagnoses were correct. These findings should be validated through larger studies to draw conclusions regarding whether systematic DICER1 genetic testing is required in children with a pathological confirmed diagnosis of CPAM or not. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

3D analysis of facial morphology in Dutch children with cancer.

Background and Objective; Genetic risk factors for childhood cancer may also influence facial morphology. 3D photography can be used in the recognition of differences in face shape among individuals. In previous research, 3D facial photography was used to identify increased facial asymmetry and greater deviation from normal facial morphology in a group of individuals with distinct morphological features who had childhood cancer compared to healthy controls. In this study, we aim to determine whether there is a difference in facial morphology between children with cancer without previously selected morphological features and healthy controls, detected with 3D facial photography. METHODS: Facial 3D photographic images were obtained of children with a newly diagnosed malignancy. The resulting sample comprised 13 different cancer types. Patients were excluded if they had a known genetic cause of the cancer. Patients were compared to healthy controls, matched for sex, age and ethnic background. The degree of asymmetry and overall deviation of an individual's face from an age and sex typical control face were measured. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients of European descent were included. No significant difference in asymmetry between patients and controls could be identified. On average, patients deviated more from an age and sex typical face than the controls. CONCLUSION: This study shows that children with cancer deviate more than controls, possibly suggesting a higher prevalence of genetic anomalies within this group. The results suggest that this is not sufficient to discriminate patients from controls. Further research is necessary to explore the patterns of individual variation among the overall deviation of patients and controls.

Clinical value of a screening tool for tumor predisposition syndromes in childhood cancer patients (TuPS): a prospective, observational, multi-center study.

Recognizing a tumor predisposition syndrome (TPS) in a child with cancer is of clinical relevance. Earlier we developed a screening tool to increase diagnostic accuracy and clinical efficiency of identifying TPSs in children with cancer. Here we report on the value of this tool in clinical practice. TuPS is a prospective, observational, multi-center study including children newly diagnosed with cancer from 2016 to 2019 in the Netherlands. Children in whom a TPS had been diagnosed before the cancer diagnosis were excluded. The screening tool consists of a checklist, 2D and 3D photographic series and digital assessment of these by a clinical geneticist. If a TPS was suspected, the patient was assessed positive and referred for routine genetic consultation. Primary aim was to assess the clinical value of this new screening tool. Of the 363 included patients, 57% (208/363) were assessed positive. In 15% of patients (32/208), the 2D photographic series with (n = 12) or without (n = 20) 3D photographs were decisive in the positive assessment. In 2% (4/208) of positive assessed patients, a TPS was diagnosed, and in an additional 2% (4/208) a germline variant of uncertain significance was found. Thirty-five negatively assessed patients were evaluated through routine genetic consultation as controls, in none a TPS was detected. Using the screening tool, 57% of the patients were assessed as suspected for having a TPS. No false negative results were identified in the negative control group in the clinical care setting. The observed prevalence of TPS was lower than expected, due to selection bias in the cohort.

Childhood tumours with a high probability of being part of a tumour predisposition syndrome; reason for referral for genetic consultation.

INTRODUCTION: Recognising a tumour predisposition syndrome (TPS) in childhood cancer patients is of major clinical relevance. The presence of a TPS may be suggested by the type of tumour in the child. We present an overview of 23 childhood tumours that in themselves should be a reason to refer a child for genetic consultation. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search to review the incidence of TPSs in children for 85 tumour types listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer third edition (ICCC-3). The results were discussed during a national consensus meeting with representative clinical geneticists from all six academic paediatric oncology centres in The Netherlands. A TPS incidence of 5% or more was considered a high probability and therefore in itself a reason for referral to a clinical geneticist. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in data on the incidence of a TPS in 26 tumours. For 23/26 tumour types, a TPS incidence of 5% or higher was reported. In addition, during the consensus meeting the experts agreed that children with any carcinoma should always be referred for clinical genetic consultation as well, as it may point to a TPS. CONCLUSION: We present an overview of 23 paediatric tumours with a high probability of a TPS; this will facilitate paediatric oncologists to decide which patients should be referred for genetic consultation merely based on type of tumour.

Validation of a clinical screening instrument for tumour predisposition syndromes in patients with childhood cancer (TuPS): protocol for a prospective, observational, multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION: Recognising a tumour predisposition syndrome (TPS) in patients with childhood cancer is of significant clinical relevance, as it affects treatment, prognosis and facilitates genetic counselling. Previous studies revealed that only half of the known TPSs are recognised during standard paediatric cancer care. In current medical practice it is impossible to refer every patient with childhood cancer to a clinical geneticist, due to limited capacity for routine genetic consultation. Therefore, we have developed a screening instrument to identify patients with childhood cancer with a high probability of having a TPS. The aim of this study is to validate the clinical screening instrument for TPS in patients with childhood cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective nationwide cohort study including all newly diagnosed patients with childhood cancer in the Netherlands. The screening instrument consists of a checklist, two- and three-dimensional photographic series of the patient. 2 independent clinical geneticists will assess the content of the screening instrument. If a TPS is suspected based on the instrument data and thus further evaluation is indicated, the patient will be invited for full genetic consultation. A negative control group consists of 20% of the patients in whom a TPS is not suspected based on the instrument; they will be randomly invited for full genetic consultation. Primary outcome measurement will be sensitivity of the instrument. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre stated that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study and that official approval of this study by the Committee was not required. The results will be offered for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at International Conferences on Oncology and Clinical Genetics. The clinical data gathered in this study will be available for all participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5605.

Age determination of subdural hematomas with CT and MRI: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature on dating subdural hematomas (SDHs) on CT and MRI scans. METHODS: We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane to search for articles that described the appearance of SDHs on CT or MRI in relation to time between trauma and scanning. Two researchers independently screened the articles, assessed methodological quality and performed data extraction. Medians with interquartile ranges were calculated. Differences were tested with a Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis H test. RESULTS: We included 22 studies describing 973 SDHs on CT and 4 studies describing 83 SDHs on MRI. Data from 17 studies (413 SDHs) could be pooled. There were significant differences between time intervals for the different densities on CT (p<0.001). Time interval differed significantly between children and adults for iso- and hypodensity (p=0.000) and hyperdensity (p=0.046). Time interval did not differ significantly between abused and non-abused children. On MRI, time intervals for different signal intensities on T1 and T2 did not differ significantly (p=0.108 and p=0.194, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most time intervals of the different appearances of SDHs on CT and MRI are broad and overlapping. Therefore CT or MRI findings cannot be used to accurately date SDHs.