Reply to Bouva et al. Comment on "Dijkstra et al. A False-Negative Newborn Screen for Tyrosinemia Type 1-Need for Re-Evaluation of Newborn Screening with Succinylacetone. Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2023, 9, 66".

We thank the authors for their comments [...].

A False-Negative Newborn Screen for Tyrosinemia Type 1-Need for Re-Evaluation of Newborn Screening with Succinylacetone.

Undiagnosed and untreated tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) individuals carry a significant risk for developing liver fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Elevated succinylacetone (SA) is pathognomonic for TT1 and therefore often used as marker for TT1 newborn screening (NBS). While SA was long considered to be elevated in every TT1 patient, here we present a recent false-negative SA TT1 screen. A nine-year-old boy presented with HCC in a cirrhotic liver. Additional tests for the underlying cause unexpectedly revealed TT1. Nine years prior, the patient was screened for TT1 via SA NBS with a negative result: SA 1.08 µmol/L, NBS cut-off 1.20 µmol/L. To our knowledge, this report is the first to describe a false-negative result from the TT1 NBS using SA. False-negative TT1 NBS results may be caused by milder TT1 variants with lower SA excretion. Such patients are more likely to be missed in NBS programs and can be asymptomatic for years. Based on our case, we advise TT1 to be considered in patients with otherwise unexplained liver pathology, including fibrosis, cirrhosis and HCC, despite a previous negative TT1 NBS status. Moreover, because the NBS SA concentration of this patient fell below the Dutch cut-off value (1.20 µmol/L at that time), as well as below the range of cut-off values used in other countries (1.29-10 µmol/L), it is likely that false-negative screening results for TT1 may also be occurring internationally. This underscores the need to re-evaluate TT1 SA NBS programs.

AXIN2-related oligodontia-colorectal cancer syndrome with cleft palate as a possible new feature.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic variants in AXIN2 have been associated with tooth agenesis, colon polyps, and colon cancer. Given the rare nature of this phenotype, we set out to collect additional genotypic and phenotypic information. METHODS: Data were collected via a structured questionnaire. Sequencing was performed in these patients mostly due to diagnostic purpose. A little more than half of the AXIN2 variant carriers were identified by NGS; other six were family members. RESULTS: Here, we report 13 individuals with a heterozygous AXIN2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant who have a variable expression of oligodontia-colorectal cancer syndrome (OMIM 608615) or oligodontia-cancer predisposition syndrome (ORPHA 300576). Three individuals from one family also had cleft palate, which might represent a new clinical feature of AXIN2 phenotype, also given the fact that AXIN2 polymorphisms have been found in association with oral clefting in population studies. AXIN2 has already been added to multigene cancer panel tests; further research should be conducted to determine whether it should be added to cleft lip/palate multigene panels. CONCLUSION: More clarity about oligodontia-colorectal cancer syndrome, about the variable expression, and associated cancer risks is needed to improve clinical management and to establish guidelines for surveillance. We collected information about the surveillance that was advised, which might support clinical management of these patients.

Strategies in Rapid Genetic Diagnostics of Critically Ill Children: Experiences From a Dutch University Hospital.

Background: Genetic disorders are a substantial cause of infant morbidity and mortality and are frequently suspected in neonatal intensive care units. Non-specific clinical presentation or limitations to physical examination can result in a plethora of genetic testing techniques, without clear strategies on test ordering. Here, we review our 2-years experiences of rapid genetic testing of NICU patients in order to provide such recommendations. Methods: We retrospectively included all patients admitted to the NICU who received clinical genetic consultation and genetic testing in our University hospital. We documented reasons for referral for genetic consultation, presenting phenotypes, differential diagnoses, genetic testing requested and their outcomes, as well as the consequences of each (rapid) genetic diagnostic approach. We calculated diagnostic yield and turnaround times (TATs). Results: Of 171 included infants that received genetic consultation 140 underwent genetic testing. As a result of testing as first tier, 13/14 patients received a genetic diagnosis from QF-PCR; 14/115 from SNP-array; 12/89 from NGS testing, of whom 4/46 were diagnosed with a small gene panel and 8/43 with a large OMIM-morbid based gene panel. Subsequent secondary or tertiary analysis and/or additional testing resulted in five more diagnoses. TATs ranged from 1 day (QF-PCR) to a median of 14 for NGS and SNP-array testing, with increasing TAT in particular when many consecutive tests were performed. Incidental findings were detected in 5/140 tested patients (3.6%). Conclusion: We recommend implementing a broad NGS gene panel in combination with CNV calling as the first tier of genetic testing for NICU patients given the often unspecific phenotypes of ill infants and the high yield of this large panel.