Clinical assessment of DSM-IV anxiety disorders in fragile X syndrome: prevalence and characterization

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common form of inherited intellectual disability (ID). Anxiety and social withdrawal are considered core features of the FXS phenotype, yet there is limited diagnostic evidence of the prevalence of formal anxiety disorders in FXS. This study assessed the prevalence of anxiety disorders in a sample of 58 males and 39 females with FXS (ages 5.0–33.3 years). Participants’ parents completed the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule (ADIS-IV), a clinical interview based on DSM-IV criteria, and the Anxiety Depression and Mood Scale (ADAMS), a psychiatric disorders screening instrument normed in ID. We conducted cognitive (IQ) and autism (AUT) assessments and surveyed medication use. Despite a high rate of psychopharmacological treatment, 86.2% of males and 76.9% of females met criteria for an anxiety disorder, with social phobia and specific phobia the most commonly diagnosed. Proband status, gender, and IQ were not significantly related to any anxiety disorders, however significantly higher rates of a few anxiety disorders were found in older age and AUT groups. Significant correlations between ADIS diagnoses and ADAMS scores provided cross-validation of instruments, indicating that the ADIS is suitable for use in FXS. A greater percentage of our sample met criteria for most anxiety disorders than has been reported in other ID groups or the general population. The rate of anxiety compared to general ID suggests that the FMR1 full mutation confers an especially high risk for these disorders, regardless of factors commonly associated with FXS clinical involvement. A thorough clinical assessment and treatment of anxiety should be included in the FXS standard of care

Genetic-Background Modulation of Core and Variable Autistic-Like Symptoms in Fmr1 Knock-Out Mice

International audienc

Evaluation and comparison of two commercially available targeted next-generation sequencing platforms to assist oncology decision making

Glen J Weiss,1 Brandi R Hoff,1 Robert P Whitehead,1 Ashish Sangal,1 Susan A Gingrich,1 Robert J Penny,2 David W Mallery,2 Scott M Morris,2 Eric J Thompson,2 David M Loesch,2 Vivek Khemka1 1Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Western Regional Medical Center, Goodyear, AZ, USA; 2Paradigm Diagnostics, Phoenix, AZ, USA Background: It is widely acknowledged that there is value in examining cancers for genomic aberrations via next-generation sequencing (NGS). How commercially available NGS platforms compare with each other, and the clinical utility of the reported actionable results, are not well known. During the course of the current study, the Foundation One (F1) test generated data on a combination of somatic mutations, insertion and deletion polymorphisms, chromosomal abnormalities, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) copy number changes at ~250× coverage, while the Paradigm Cancer Diagnostic (PCDx) test generated the same type of data at >5,000× coverage, plus provided messenger RNA (mRNA) expression levels. We sought to compare and evaluate paired formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue using these two platforms.Methods: Samples from patients with advanced solid tumors were submitted to both the F1 and PCDx vendors for NGS analysis. Turnaround time (TAT) was calculated. Biomarkers were considered clinically actionable if they had a published association with treatment response in humans and were assigned to the following categories: commercially available drug (CA), clinical trial drug (CT), or neither option (hereafter referred to as “None”).Results: The demographics of the 21 unique patient tumor samples included ten men and eleven women, with a median age of 56 years. Due to insufficient archival tissue from the same collection period, in one case, we used samples from different collections. PCDx reported first results faster than F1 in 20 cases. When received at both vendors on the same day, PCDx reported first results for 14 of 15 cases, with a median TAT of 9 days earlier than F1 (P<0.0001). Categorization of CA compared to CT and none significantly favored PCDx (P=0.012).Conclusion: In the current analysis, commercially available NGS platforms provided clinically relevant actionable targets (CA or CT) in 47%–67% of diverse cancer types. In the samples analyzed, PCDx significantly outperformed F1 in TAT, and had statistically significant higher clinically relevant actionable targets categorized as CA. Keywords: next-generation sequencing, cancer, assay, platform, treatment decision makin