Is gene panel sequencing more efficient than clinical-based gene sequencing to diagnose autoinflammatory diseases? A randomized study.

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the gene-panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy versus the clinical-based gene Sanger sequencing for the genetic diagnosis of autoinflammatory diseases (AIDs). Secondary goals were to describe the gene and mutation distribution in AID patients and to evaluate the impact of the genetic report on the patient's medical care and treatment. Patients with AID symptoms were enrolled prospectively and randomized to two arms, NGS (n = 99) (32-55 genes) and Sanger sequencing (n = 197) (one to four genes). Genotypes were classified as 'consistent/confirmatory', 'uncertain significance' or 'non-contributory'. The proportion of patients with pathogenic genotypes concordant with the AID phenotype (consistent/confirmatory) was significantly higher with NGS than Sanger sequencing [10 of 99 (10·1%) versus eight of 197 (4·1%)]. MEFV, ADA2 and MVK were the most represented genes with a consistent/confirmed genotype, whereas MEFV, NLRP3, NOD2 and TNFRSF1A were found in the 'uncertain significance' genotypes. Six months after the genetic report was sent, 54 of 128 (42·2%) patients had received effective treatment for their symptoms; 13 of 128 (10·2%) had started treatment after the genetic study. For 59 of 128 (46%) patients, the results had an impact on their overall care, independent of sequencing group and diagnostic conclusion. Targeted NGS improved the diagnosis and global care of patients with AIDs.

Dermatological manifestations in cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome: a prospective multicentric study of 45 mutation-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Data on dermatological manifestations of cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome (CFCS) remain heterogeneous and almost without expert dermatological classification. OBJECTIVES: To describe the dermatological manifestations of CFCS; to compare them with the literature findings; to assess those discriminating CFCS from other RASopathies, including Noonan syndrome (NS) and Costello syndrome (CS); and to test for dermatological phenotype-genotype correlations. METHODS: We performed a 4-year, large, prospective, multicentric, collaborative dermatological and genetic study. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled. Hair abnormalities were ubiquitous, including scarcity or absence of eyebrows and wavy or curly hair in 73% and 69% of patients, respectively. Keratosis pilaris (KP), ulerythema ophryogenes (UO), palmoplantar hyperkeratosis (PPHK) and multiple melanocytic naevi (MMN; over 50 naevi) were noted in 82%, 44%, 27% and 29% of patients, respectively. Scarcity or absence of eyebrows, association of UO and PPHK, diffuse KP and MMN best differentiated CFCS from NS and CS. Oral acitretin may be highly beneficial for therapeutic management of PPHK, whereas treatment of UO by topical sirolimus 1% failed. No significant dermatological phenotype-genotype correlation was determined. CONCLUSIONS: A thorough knowledge of CFCS skin manifestations would help in making a positive diagnosis and differentiating CFCS from CS and NS.