Evaluation of DSD training schools organized by cost action BM1303 "DSDnet".

BACKGROUND: The Differences of Sex Development network (DSDnet) aims to establish interactive relationships between clinicians, scientists, support groups and people with a difference of sex development (DSD) to improve the overall care for people affected by such condition. DSDnet has hosted three Training Schools (TSs) in Ghent, Bologna and Budapest between 2015 and 2017 with the primary purpose of providing multidisciplinary training to young professionals and encouraging ongoing activity in the field of DSD. The aim of our study was to evaluate the success and long-term effect effectiveness of these three TSs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-seven trainees (70 women, 17 men) attended one of three TSs. The distribution of trainees according to their professional field was: 47 (54.0%) from Pediatrics/Endocrinology, 13 (14.9%) from Biology/Genetics, 12 (13.8%) from Psychology/Psychiatry and 15 (17.2%) from Surgical Professions. All trainees were asked to complete an evaluation form on the last day of the TS to gain feedback on how to improve the next one. A further survey was sent at the end of 2017 to provide information about the overall long-term impact of the TSs. Seventy-eight (89.7%) trainees completed evaluation forms at the end of the respective TSs. Replies to the subsequent survey were received from 76 (87.4%) of trainees. A total of 72/76 (94.7%) responders reported that they continue to be active in the field of DSD. The vast majority (64/68, 94.1%) reported that the TSs had enlarged their professional networks. Among the 76 respondent trainees, 11.8% (n = 9) had applied for a research grant and 10.5% (n = 8) had received a fellowship related to DSD since their TS attendance. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the majority of TS participants continue to be active in the field of DSD and have enlarged their professional networks following participation at the TS. These findings indicate the need of this type of educational program and justify ongoing efforts to provide postgraduate multidisciplinary training in rare diseases such as DSD.

The evaluation and management of the boy with DSD.

Atypical genitalia in a boy may have a very wide and diverse aetiology and a definitive diagnosis is often challenging to reach. Detailed clinical evaluation integrated with extensive biochemical and genetic studies play an important role in this process. Such care should be undertaken in highly specialized centres that can also provide access to a multidisciplinary team for optimal long-term care.

Prevalence of endocrine and genetic abnormalities in boys evaluated systematically for a disorder of sex development.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the likelihood of identifying genetic or endocrine abnormalities in a group of boys with 46, XY who present to a specialist clinic with a suspected disorder of sex development (DSD)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An endocrine abnormality of the gonadal axis may be present in a quarter of cases and copy number variants (CNVs) or single gene variants may be present in about half of the cases. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evaluation of 46, XY DSD requires a combination of endocrine and genetic tests but the prevalence of these abnormalities in a sufficiently large group of boys presenting to one specialist multidisciplinary service is unclear. STUDY, DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study was a retrospective review of investigations performed on 122 boys. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All boys who attended the Glasgow DSD clinic, between 2010 and 2015 were included in the study. The median external masculinization score (EMS) of this group was 9 (range 1-11). Details of phenotype, endocrine and genetic investigations were obtained from case records. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: An endocrine abnormality of gonadal function was present in 28 (23%) with a median EMS of 8.3 (1-10.5) whilst the median EMS of boys with normal endocrine investigations was 9 (1.5-11) (P = 0.03). Endocrine abnormalities included a disorder of gonadal development in 19 (16%), LH deficiency in 5 (4%) and a disorder of androgen synthesis in 4 (3%) boys. Of 43 cases who had array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH), CNVs were reported in 13 (30%) with a median EMS of 8.5 (1.5-11). Candidate gene analysis using a limited seven-gene panel in 64 boys identified variants in 9 (14%) with a median EMS of 8 (1-9). Of the 21 boys with a genetic abnormality, 11 (52%) had normal endocrine investigations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A selection bias for performing array-CGH in cases with multiple congenital malformations may have led to a high yield of CNVs. It is also possible that the yield of single gene variants may have been higher than reported if the investigators had used a more extended gene panel. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The lack of a clear association between the extent of under-masculinization and presence of endocrine and genetic abnormalities suggests a role for parallel endocrine and genetic investigations in cases of suspected XY DSD. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): RN was supported by the James Paterson Bursary and the Glasgow Children's Hospital Charity Summer Scholarship. SFA, RM and EST are supported by a Scottish Executive Health Department grant 74250/1 for the Scottish Genomes Partnership. EST is also supported by MRC/EPSRC Molecular Pathology Node and Wellcome Trust ISSF funding. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: None.

The Long-Term Outcome of Boys With Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and a Mutation in the Androgen Receptor Gene.

BACKGROUND: In boys with suspected partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS), systematic evidence that supports the long-term prognostic value of identifying a mutation in the androgen receptor gene (AR) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes in young men with suspected PAIS in relation to the results of AR analysis. METHODS: Through the International Disorders of Sex Development Registry, clinical information was gathered on young men suspected of having PAIS (n = 52) who presented before the age of 16 years and had genetic analysis of AR. RESULTS: The median ages at presentation and at the time of the study were 1 month (range, 1 day to 16 years) and 22 years (range, 16 to 52 years), respectively. Of the cohort, 29 men (56%) had 20 different AR mutations reported. At diagnosis, the median external masculinization scores were 7 and 6 in cases with and without AR mutation, respectively (P = .9), and median current external masculinization scores were 9 and 10, respectively (P = .28). Thirty-five men (67%) required at least one surgical procedure, and those with a mutation were more likely to require multiple surgeries for hypospadias (P = .004). All cases with an AR mutation had gynecomastia, compared to 9% of those without an AR mutation. Of the six men who had a mastectomy, five (83%) had an AR mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Boys with genetically confirmed PAIS are likely to have a poorer clinical outcome than those with XY DSD, with normal T synthesis, and without an identifiable AR mutation. Routine genetic analysis of AR to confirm PAIS informs long-term prognosis and management.

Understanding the genetic aetiology in patients with XY DSD.

BACKGROUND: Disorders of sex development (DSD) consist of a wide range of disorders and are commoner in those with an XY karyotype. In over half of these cases who have a 46,XY karyotype and who are raised as boys, the underlying aetiology remains unclear. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Identification of the underlying genetic abnormality may predict long-term outcome. However, genetic abnormalities that are associated with XY DSD manifest themselves with a wide range of phenotype. To understand the aetiology as well as the phenotypic variation, there is a need to harness the advanced genetic technology that is now available. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The point at which genetic analysis should be undertaken in the course of investigations is unclear. In addition, there is little agreement on the most effective approach for genetic analysis that will be of clinical benefit to the patient. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: There is a need to understand and improve the clinical utility of genetic analysis in the clinical setting of the patient with a suspected DSD. This will be even more important when parallel gene sequencing identifies variations in multiple genes.