ERN GENTURIS clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, management and surveillance of people with schwannomatosis.

A Guideline Group (GG) was convened from multiple specialties and patients to develop the first comprehensive schwannomatosis guideline. The GG undertook thorough literature review and wrote recommendations for treatment and surveillance. A modified Delphi process was used to gain approval for recommendations which were further altered for maximal consensus. Schwannomatosis is a tumour predisposition syndrome leading to development of multiple benign nerve-sheath non-intra-cutaneous schwannomas that infrequently affect the vestibulocochlear nerves. Two definitive genes (SMARCB1/LZTR1) have been identified on chromosome 22q centromeric to NF2 that cause schwannoma development by a 3-event, 4-hit mechanism leading to complete inactivation of each gene plus NF2. These genes together account for 70-85% of familial schwannomatosis and 30-40% of isolated cases in which there is considerable overlap with mosaic NF2. Craniospinal MRI is generally recommended from symptomatic diagnosis or from age 12-14 if molecularly confirmed in asymptomatic individuals whose relative has schwannomas. Whole-body MRI may also be deployed and can alternate with craniospinal MRI. Ultrasound scans are useful in limbs where typical pain is not associated with palpable lumps. Malignant-Peripheral-Nerve-Sheath-Tumour-MPNST should be suspected in anyone with rapidly growing tumours and/or functional loss especially with SMARCB1-related schwannomatosis. Pain (often intractable to medication) is the most frequent symptom. Surgical removal, the most effective treatment, must be balanced against potential loss of function of adjacent nerves. Assessment of patients' psychosocial needs should be assessed annually as well as review of pain/pain medication. Genetic diagnosis and counselling should be guided ideally by both blood and tumour molecular testing.

Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?

BACKGROUND: Lithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. AIMS: This study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interval could be extended in some cases. METHOD: We included 46 555 lithium rest requests in 3371 individuals over 7 years from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40-0.79 mmol/L; 0.80-0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where lithium results remained stable or switched category on subsequent testing, considering the effects of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history. RESULTS: For tests within the recommended range (0.40-0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall, 3 monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range, compared with 85% at 6 monthly intervals. In cases where the lithium level in the previous 12 months was on target (0.40-0.79 mmol/L; British National Formulary/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria), 90% remained within the target range at 6 months. Neither age nor duration of lithium therapy had any significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80-0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) compared with those in the 0.4-0.79 mmol/L group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency. CONCLUSION: We propose that for those who achieve 12 months of lithium tests within the 0.40-0.79 mmol/L range, the interval between tests could increase to 6 months, irrespective of age. Where lithium levels are 0.80-0.99 mmol/L, the test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a.

Recalibration of thinking about adrenocortical function assessment: how the 'random' cortisol relates to the short synacthen test results.

BACKGROUND: The short synacthen test (SST) is the most commonly performed investigation to assess adrenal function. Appropriate criteria for when an SST is performed are subject to debate. We investigated how random serum cortisol levels relate to SST response. METHODS: We examined random cortisol measurements taken between 04.40-23.55 p.m. results of SST baseline and 30-/60-min cortisol performed over 12 months (225 SSTs) at Salford Royal Hospital. Serum cortisol was measured on the Siemens Centaur Analyser.A 30-60-min cortisol concentration of ≥450 nmol/L defined a pass; 350-449 nmol/L defined borderline. RESULTS: Patients only proceeded to SST if random cortisol was <400 nmol/L. For those not on corticosteroids for at least 2 weeks, 42/43 (97.7%) cases with random cortisol concentration of ≥200 nmol/L had an SST 'pass'. The relation was less clear with corticosteroid treatment (19/35 cases; 54%).For those not taking glucocorticoid treatment (including inhaled/topical corticosteroids) in the previous 2 weeks, 91.8% of SSTs were pass/2.7% borderline/5.5% fail. For those on steroids, 51.9% of SSTs were a pass/11.4% were borderline.In relation to the postsynacthen cortisol pass cut-off of ≥450 nmol/L, in 15/207 (7.2%) of cases, the 60-min cortisol was ≥450 nmol/L (adequate adrenocortical function), but 30-min cortisol was below this. In all cases where the 30-min cortisol did indicate a pass (i.e. was ≥450 nmol/L) the 60-min cortisol was also ≥450 nmol/L. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that if the random cortisol level is ≥200 nmol/L, regardless of the time of day and the person was not taking corticosteroid treatment in the previous 2 weeks, SST may not be needed. Our data also suggests that 60-min cortisol retains utility.

Incidence of mosaicism in 1055 de novo NF2 cases: much higher than previous estimates with high utility of next-generation sequencing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence of mosaicism in de novo neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2). METHODS: Patients fulfilling NF2 criteria, but with no known affected family member from a previous generation (n = 1055), were tested for NF2 variants in lymphocyte DNA and where available tumor DNA. The proportion of individuals with a proven or presumed mosaic NF2 variant was assessed and allele frequencies of identified variants evaluated using next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: The rate of proven/presumed mosaicism was 232/1055 (22.0%). However, nonmosaic heterozygous pathogenic variants were only identified in 387/1055 (36.7%). When variant detection rates in second generation nonmosaics were applied to de novo cases, we assessed the overall probable mosaicism rate to be 59.7%. This rate differed by age from 21.7% in those presenting with bilateral vestibular schwannoma <20 years to 80.7% in those aged ≥60 years. A mosaic variant was detected in all parents of affected children with a single-nucleotide pathogenic NF2 variant. CONCLUSION: This study has identified a very high probable mosaicism rate in de novo NF2, probably making NF2 the condition with the highest expressed rate of mosaicism in de novo dominant disease that is nonlethal in heterozygote form. Risks to offspring are small and probably correlate with variant allele frequency detected in blood.

Schwannomatosis: a genetic and epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Schwannomatosis is a dominantly inherited condition predisposing to schwannomas of mainly spinal and peripheral nerves with some diagnostic overlap with neurofibromatosis-2 (NF2), but the underlying epidemiology is poorly understood. We present the birth incidence and prevalence allowing for overlap with NF2. METHODS: Schwannomatosis and NF2 cases were ascertained from the Manchester region of England (population=4.8 million) and from across the UK. Point prevalence and birth incidence were calculated from regional birth statistics. Genetic analysis was also performed on NF2, LZTR1 and SMARCB1 on blood and tumour DNA samples when available. RESULTS: Regional prevalence for schwannomatosis and NF2 were 1 in 126 315 and 50 500, respectively, with calculated birth incidences of 1 in 68 956 and 1 in 27 956. Mosaic NF2 causes a substantial overlap with schwannomatosis resulting in the misdiagnosis of at least 9% of schwannomatosis cases. LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis also causes a small number of cases that are misdiagnosed with NF2 (1%-2%), due to the occurrence of a unilateral vestibular schwannoma. Patients with schwannomatosis had lower numbers of non-vestibular cranial schwannomas, but more peripheral and spinal nerve schwannomas with pain as a predominant presenting symptom. Life expectancy was significantly better in schwannomatosis (mean age at death 76.9) compared with NF2 (mean age at death 66.2; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Within the highly ascertained North-West England population, schwannomatosis has less than half the birth incidence and prevalence of NF2.