A post hoc study on gene panel analysis for the diagnosis of dystonia

Movement Disorders

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 569-575

  van Egmond, Martje E ^a,b   Lugtenberg, Coen H A ^a   Brouwer, Oebele F ^a   Contarino, Maria Fiorella ^c,d   Fung, Victor S C ^e   Heiner Fokkema, M Rebecca ^a   van Hilten, Jacobus J ^c   van der Hout, Annemarie H ^a   Peall, Kathryn J ^f   Sinke, Richard J ^a   Roze, Emmanuel ^g   Verschuuren Bemelmans, Corien C ^a   Willemsen, Michel A ^h   Wolf, Nicole I ⁱ   Tijssen, Marina A ^a   de Koning, Tom J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d HAGA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^f CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^g PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^h RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

ⁱ VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

cost; diagnostic yield; dystonia; gene panel analysis; next generation sequencing

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DYSTONIA; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POST HOC ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST; DNA MUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; GENETICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONSET AGE; PROCEDURES; YOUNG ADULT;

MEMBRANE PROTEIN; NERVE PROTEIN; PRRT2 PROTEIN, HUMAN;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE OF ONSET; CHILD; COHORT STUDIES; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DNA MUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; DYSTONIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEMBRANE PROTEINS; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; NERVE TISSUE PROTEINS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85013006971     PISSN: 08853185     EISSN: 15318257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mds.26937     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Albanese A, Bhatia K, Bressman SB, et al. Phenomenology and classification of dystonia: a consensus update. Mov Disord 2013;28:863-873.
2. Fung VS, Jinnah HA, Bhatia K, Vidailhet M. Assessment of patients with isolated or combined dystonia: an update on dystonia syndromes. Mov Disord 2013;28:889-898.
3. Mink JW. Special concerns in defining, studying, and treating dystonia in children. Mov Disord 2013;28:921-925.
4. Garcia-Cazorla A, Wolf NI, Serrano M, et al. Inborn errors of metabolism and motor disturbances in children. J Inherit Metab Dis 2009;32:618-629.
5. van Egmond ME, Kuiper A, Eggink H, et al. Dystonia in children and adolescents: a systematic review and a new diagnostic algorithm. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:774-781.
6. de Ligt J, Willemsen MH, van Bon BW, et al. Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1921-1929.
7. Sikkema-Raddatz B, Johansson LF, de Boer EN, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing can replace Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics. Hum Mutat 2013;34:1035-1042.
8. Neveling K, Feenstra I, Gilissen C, et al. A post-hoc comparison of the utility of sanger sequencing and exome sequencing for the diagnosis of heterogeneous diseases. Hum Mutat 2013;34:1721-1726.
9. Shashi V, McConkie-Rosell A, Rosell B, et al. The utility of the traditional medical genetics diagnostic evaluation in the context of next-generation sequencing for undiagnosed genetic disorders. Genet Med 2014;16:176-182.
10. Tarailo-Graovac M, Shyr C, Ross CJ, et al. Exome Sequencing and the Management of Neurometabolic Disorders. N Engl J Med 2016;374:2246-2255.
11. Olgiati S, Quadri M, Bonifati V. Genetics of movement disorders in the next-generation sequencing era. Mov Disord 2016;31:458-470.
12. Trump N, McTague A, Brittain H, et al. Improving diagnosis and broadening the phenotypes in early-onset seizure and severe developmental delay disorders through gene panel analysis. J Med Genet 2016;53:310-317.
13. Weiss MM, Van der Zwaag B, Jongbloed JD, et al. Best practice guidelines for the use of next-generation sequencing applications in genome diagnostics: a national collaborative study of Dutch genome diagnostic laboratories. Hum Mutat 2013;34:1313-1321.
14. Seibler P, Djarmati A, Langpap B, et al. A heterozygous frameshift mutation in PRKRA (DYT16) associated with generalised dystonia in a German patient. Lancet Neurol 2008:7;380-381.
15. Willemsen MA, Verbeek MM, Kamsteeg E, et al. Tyrosine hydroxylase deficiency: a treatable disorder of brain catecolamine biosynthesis. Brain 2010;133:1810-1822.
16. Pupavac M, Tian X, Chu J, et al. Added value of next generation gene panel analysis for patients with elevated methylmalonic acid and no clinical diagnosis following functional studies of vitamin B12 metabolism. Mol Genet Metab 2016;117:363-368.
17. Beale S, Sanderson D, Sanniti A, Dundar Y, Boland A. A scoping study to explore the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing compared with traditional genetic testing for the diagnosis of learning disabilities in children. Health Technol Assess 2015;19:1-90.
18. Valencia CA, Husami A, Holle J, et al. Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of whole exome sequencing as a diagnostic tool: a paediatric center's experience. Front Pediatr 2015;3:67.
19. Bertram KL, Williams DR. Diagnosis of dystonic syndromes – a new eight question approach. Nat Rev Neurol 2012;20:275-283.
20. Warman Chardon J, Beaulieu C, Hartley T, Boycott KM, Dyment DA. Axons to exons: the molecular diagnosis of rare neurological diseases by next-generation sequencing. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2015;15:64.
21. Hennekam RC, Biesecker LG. Next-generation sequencing demands next-generation phenotyping. Hum Mutat 2012;33:884-886.
22. Lill CM, Mashychev A, Hartmann C, et al. Launching the movement disorders society genetic mutation database (MDSGene). Mov Disord 2016;31:607-609.