MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2988465249 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-127185

Clinical Utility of Telomere Length-Directed Genomic Assessment in Patients with Short Telomere Syndromes

2019· article· en· W2988465249 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abhishek A. Mangaonkar, Alejandro Ferrer, Filippo Pinto e Vairo, Margot A. Cousin, Ryan J. Kuisle, Cassie C. Kennedy, Giacomo Coltro, Naseema Gangat, William J. Hogan, Mark R. Litzow, Steve G. Peters, Eric W. Klee, JP Scott, James P. Utz, Misbah Baqir, Eva Carmona Porquera, Hiroshi Sekiguchi, Shakila P. Khan, Vilmarie Rodriguez, Douglas A. Simonetto, Patrick S. Kamath, Avni Y. Joshi, Mark E. Wylam, Mrinal M. Patnaik

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTelomereMedicineGenetic testingTelomeraseInternal medicineBiologyGeneticsGene

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Short telomere syndromes (STS) are accelerated aging syndromes affecting hematopoietic, pulmonary, hepatobiliary and/or immunological systems. Clinical assessment of age-appropriate telomere length (TL) is performed using flow cytometry & fluorescence in-situ hybridization (flowFISH). Screening for germline variants in STS-related genes is guided by flowFISH-determined centile categories of TL, with screening recommended for TL <1st centile or 1-10th centile in lymphocytes (L) or granulocytes (G). However, the utility of genetic testing for patients with TL >10th centile and integration of clinical phenotype with flowFISH data in predictive algorithms is currently unclear. Methods: FlowFISH testing was done at reference laboratories in Vancouver (Repeat Diagnostics; Canada) & Johns Hopkins University (JHU, USA). Salient clinical features were pre-determined as, personal history of premature hair greying (onset at age < 30 years), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or IPF/emphysema overlap (in smokers), cryptogenic cirrhosis or NRH, unexplained cytopenias &/or immunodeficiency, & family history of the above (in >1 1st or 2nd degree relatives). Clinical likelihood score (CLS) was assigned as low (1), intermediate (int, 2) or high (>2), based on the number of aforementioned clinical features present prior to flowFISH testing. Genetic testing was performed using either an in-house or commercial bone marrow failure-specific next generation sequencing (NGS) panel or whole exome sequencing (WES), and data for known variants affecting telomerase or telomeric function (TERT, TERC, DKC1, TINF2, NHP2, NOP10, TCAB1, NAF1, & RTEL1) was recorded. Results: One hundred forty-nine patients at our institution underwent TL assessment at Repeat diagnostics (n=38) and JHU (n=111) laboratories, respectively. Median age was 56 (range: 7-79) years; 88 (59%) being males. Significant family history was present in 40 (27%) patients, while premature greying of hair was present in 13 (9%) patients. Organ-specific clinical features included unexplained cytopenias (n=89, 60%) IPF (n=71, 48%), cryptogenic cirrhosis or NRH (n=21, 14%), & unexplained immunodeficiency (n=14, 9%). CLS stratification included low (n=74, 50%), int (n=54, 36%), & high (n=21, 14%), with higher CLS significantly correlating with lower delta TL for L (p=0.0005) but not G (p=0.3). Genetic testing was performed in 51 (35%) patients (NGS-51, WES-1) among which 13 (26%) patients had a telomere-associated variant; 5 (10%) pathogenic (pv, all TERT). CLS alone was unable to predict likelihood of finding a telomere-associated variant (p=0.4). Based on age-appropriate centile categorization of L & G TL (information for both available in 134 patients), patients were stratified into six groups (table 1). TL <1st centile in L: This group was further divided into two groups; TL<1st centile in both L & G [A1, n=7, CLS low-3 (43%), int-2 (29%), & high-2 (29%)] and TL <1st centile in L and 1-50th centile in G (A2, n=2, CLS low & high) patients. Among the 4 (57%) patients who underwent genetic (NGS-3, WES-1) testing, 3 (75%) had TERTpv in A1 subgroup and 1 A2 subgroup patient had a VUS in TERT.TL <1st centile in G, 1-10th centile in L (n=18): This group included 9 (50%) low, 8 (44%) int and 1 (6) high CLS patients, of which only 1 of 8 NGS-tested patients had TERTpv.TL 1-10th centile in L or G: This group was divided into; 1-10th centile in both L & G [C1, n=28, CLS low-3 (11%), int-14 (50%), high-11(39%)] of whom 8 (22%) underwent NGS with no pathogenic variants but 3 VUS in RTEL1, NAF1 & PARN genes, and 1-10th centile in L, >1-90th centile in G [C2, n=36, CLS low-19 (53%), 16 (44%), 1 (3%)] of whom 8 (22%) underwent NGS with 1 TERTpv and 2 VUS in TINF2TL >10th centile in L & 1-90th centile in G (n=43, 32%): CLS stratification in this group included 27 (63%) low, 12 (28%) int, 4 (9%) high. NGS testing was done in 13 (30%) patients [CLS low-9(69%), int 2(15%), high 2 (15%)], of whom only 2 (15%) had VUS in TINF2 and TERT gene, but no pathogenic variants (figure 1). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the importance of using a flowFISH assay based predictive algorithm to screen patients with suspected STS for telomere-related genetic alternations, in comparison to a clinical likelihood score. We also demonstrate a limited role for genetic testing in patients with lymphocyte TL >10th centile, regardless of the clinical likelihood score. Disclosures Patnaik: Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,296
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence→Travaux en français237 207→