Download PDF
Neuropediatrics 2019; 50(03): 164-169
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1685216
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Array-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization: Sensitivity and Specificity using a Criteria Checklist for Genetic Test Performance

Alfonso Amado-Puentes
1   Department of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Unit, Álvaro Cunqueiro Hospital, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
,
Alfredo Reparaz-Andrade
2   Department of Clinical Analysis, Cytogenetics Unit, Álvaro Cunqueiro Hospital, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
,
Aida Del Campo-García
1   Department of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Unit, Álvaro Cunqueiro Hospital, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
,
Manuel Óscar Blanco-Barca
1   Department of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Unit, Álvaro Cunqueiro Hospital, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
,
Ángel Salgado-Barreira
3   Methodology and Statistics Unit, Galicia Sur Health Research Institute (IIS Galicia Sur), Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
,
Víctor Del Campo-Pérez
4   Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Álvaro Cunqueiro Hospital, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
,
José Ramón Fernández-Lorenzo
5   Department of Pediatrics, Álvaro Cunqueiro Hospital, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by grants from the Spanish Pediatric Neurology Society (SENEP) and Mutual Médica Foundation.
Further Information

Publication History

16 January 2018

28 February 2019

Publication Date:
02 April 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is a molecular analysis method for identifying chromosomal anomalies or copy number variants (CNVs) correlating with clinical phenotypes. The aim of our study was to identify the most significant clinical variables associated with a positive outcome of aCGH analyses to develop a simple predictive clinical score.

Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in a tertiary center comparing the genotype and phenotype of the cases. A score was developed using multivariate logistic regression. The best score cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the curve were calculated with the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results aCGH identified structural chromosomal alterations responsible for the disorder in 13.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.9–16.5) of our sample (570 patients analyzed by aCGH). Based on the most frequent phenotypic characteristics among patients with a pathogenic CNV, we have created a checklist with the following items: alteration of the cranial perimeter, stature < percentile (p) 3, weight < p3, presence of brain malformations, ophthalmological malformations, two or more dysmorphic features in the same patient, and autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Using a score ≥1.5 as the cutoff point for the test, we obtained a sensitivity of 82.4% (95% CI: 73.1–91.8) and a specificity of 54.2% (95% CI: 49.7–58.7).

Conclusion All individuals with a score of 1.5 or higher should be genetically screened by aCGH. This approach can improve clinical indications for aCGH in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders, but the scoring system should be validated in an external group.

Keywords

neurodevelopmental - genetics - array-based CGH - autism spectrum disorders - scale - checklist
 

  • References

  • 1 Blanco-Lago R, García-Ron A, Granizo-Martínez JJ, Ruibal JL. Current situation of the demand for health care in neuropaediatrics. Characteristics of consultations and comparison with other paediatric specialties [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 2014; 59 (09) 392-398
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 García-Ron A, Illán-Ramos M, García-Ron G, Vieco-García A, Huete-Hernani B, Moreno-Vinues B. Assessment of ‘neurophobia’ or ‘neurological illiteracy’ as cause of increased assistance in child neurology . [in Spanish ]. Rev Neurol 2016; 62 (04) 191-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Artigas-Pallarés J, Paula-Pérez I. Unresolved issues in the DSM-5 [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 2015; 60 (Suppl. 01) S95-S101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Artigas-Pallarés J. Do we know what a disorder is? Prospects of the DSM 5 [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 2011; 52 (Suppl. 01) S59-S69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Artigas-Pallarés J, Guitart M, Gabau-Vila E. The genetic bases of neurodevelopmental disorders [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 2013; 56 (Suppl. 01) S23-S34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 D'Arrigo S, Gavazzi F, Alfei E. , et al. The diagnostic yield of array comparative genomic hybridization is high regardless of severity of intellectual disability/developmental delay in children. J Child Neurol 2016; 31 (06) 691-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Michelson DJ, Shevell MI, Sherr EH, Moeschler JB, Gropman AL, Ashwal S. Evidence report: genetic and metabolic testing on children with global developmental delay: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology 2011; 77 (17) 1629-1635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moeschler JB, Shevell M. ; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Genetics. Clinical genetic evaluation of the child with mental retardation or developmental delays. Pediatrics 2006; 117 (06) 2304-2316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sherr EH, Michelson DJ, Shevell MI, Moeschler JB, Gropman AL, Ashwal S. Neurodevelopmental disorders and genetic testing: current approaches and future advances. Ann Neurol 2013; 74 (02) 164-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S. , et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010; 86 (05) 749-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cooper GM, Coe BP, Girirajan S. , et al. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nat Genet 2011; 43 (09) 838-846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stankiewicz P, Beaudet AL. Use of array CGH in the evaluation of dysmorphology, malformations, developmental delay, and idiopathic mental retardation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2007; 17 (03) 182-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bernardini L, Alesi V, Loddo S. , et al. High-resolution SNP arrays in mental retardation diagnostics: how much do we gain?. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18 (02) 178-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 de Vries BB, White SM, Knight SJ. , et al. Clinical studies on submicroscopic subtelomeric rearrangements: a checklist. J Med Genet 2001; 38 (03) 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 de Vries BBA, Pfundt R, Leisink M. , et al. Diagnostic genome profiling in mental retardation. Am J Hum Genet 2005; 77 (04) 606-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Coutton C, Dieterich K, Satre V. , et al. Array-CGH in children with mild intellectual disability: a population-based study. Eur J Pediatr 2015; 174 (01) 75-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 O'Roak BJ, Deriziotis P, Lee C. , et al. Exome sequencing in sporadic autism spectrum disorders identifies severe de novo mutations. Nat Genet 2011; 43 (06) 585-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Betancur C. Etiological heterogeneity in autism spectrum disorders: more than 100 genetic and genomic disorders and still counting. Brain Res 2011; 1380: 42-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lionel AC, Crosbie J, Barbosa N. , et al. Rare copy number variation discovery and cross-disorder comparisons identify risk genes for ADHD. Sci Transl Med 2011; 3 (95) 95ra75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Williams NM, Zaharieva I, Martin A. , et al. Rare chromosomal deletions and duplications in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a genome-wide analysis. Lancet 2010; 376 (9750): 1401-1408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mefford HC, Muhle H, Ostertag P. , et al. Genome-wide copy number variation in epilepsy: novel susceptibility loci in idiopathic generalized and focal epilepsies. PLoS Genet 2010; 6 (05) e1000962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tammimies K, Marshall CR, Walker S. , et al. Molecular diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis and whole-exome sequencing in children with autism spectrum disorder. JAMA 2015; 314 (09) 895-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Riggs ER, Wain KE, Riethmaier D. , et al. Chromosomal microarray impacts clinical management. Clin Genet 2014; 85 (02) 147-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 26 de Ligt J, Willemsen MH, van Bon BWM. , et al. Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (20) 1921-1929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar