40 research outputs found
High-throughput proteomic analysis reveals systemic dysregulation in virally suppressed people living with HIV
BACKGROUND. People living with HIV (PLHIV) receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) exhibit persistent immune dysregulation and microbial dysbiosis, leading to development of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). We initially compared plasma proteomic profiles between 205 PLHIV and 120 healthy control participants (HCs) and validated the results in an independent cohort of 639 PLHIV and 99 HCs. Differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) were then associated to microbiome data. Finally, we assessed which proteins were linked with CVD development in PLHIV. METHODS. Proximity extension assay technology was used to measure 1,472 plasma proteins. Markers of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein, D-dimer, IL-6, soluble CD14, and soluble CD163) and microbial translocation (IFABP) were measured by ELISA, and gut bacterial species were identified using shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Baseline CVD data were available for all PLHIV, and 205 PLHIV were recorded for development of CVD during a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS. PLHIV receiving ART had systemic dysregulation of protein concentrations, compared with HCs. Most of the DEPs originated from the intestine and lymphoid tissues and were enriched in immune- and lipid metabolism-related pathways. DEPs originating from the intestine were associated with specific gut bacterial species. Finally, we identified upregulated proteins in PLHIV (GDF15, PLAUR, RELT, NEFL, COL6A3, and EDA2R), unlike most markers of systemic inflammation, associated with the presence and risk of developing CVD during 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION. Our findings suggest a systemic dysregulation of protein concentrations in PLHIV; some proteins were associated with CVD development. Most DEPs originated from the gut and were related to specific gut bacterial species.</p
Clinical value of cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chain in semantic dementia
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Background: Semantic dementia (SD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterised by progressive language problems falling within the clinicopathological spectrum of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). The development of disease-modifying agents may be facilitated by the relative clinical and pathological homogeneity of SD, but we need robust monitoring biomarkers to measure their efficacy. In different FTLD subtypes, neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising marker, therefore we investigated the utility of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) NfL in SD.
Methods: This large retrospective multicentre study compared cross-sectional CSF NfL levels of 162 patients with SD with 65 controls. CSF NfL levels of patients were correlated with clinical parameters (including survival), neuropsychological test scores and regional grey matter atrophy (including longitudinal data in a subset).
Results: CSF NfL levels were significantly higher in patients with SD (median: 2326 pg/mL, IQR: 1628-3593) than in controls (577 (446-766), p<0.001). Higher CSF NfL levels were moderately associated with naming impairment as measured by the Boston Naming Test (rs =-0.32, p=0.002) and with smaller grey matter volume of the parahippocampal gyri (rs =-0.31, p=0.004). However, cross-sectional CSF NfL levels were not associated with progression of grey matter atrophy and did not predict survival.
Conclusion: CSF NfL is a promising biomarker in the diagnostic process of SD, although it has limited cross-sectional monitoring or prognostic abilities.This study was funded by a Memorabel grant from Deltaplan Dementie (The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, and Alzheimer Nederland grant number 7330598105), National Institutes of Health (Grants AG010124, AG032953, AG043503, NS088341, AG017586, AG052943, AG038490), the Wyncote Foundation, Dana Foundation, Brightfocus Foundation, Penn Institute on Aging, Pla estratègic de recerca i innovació en salut 2016-2020, Catalan Department of Health (grant number SLT002/16/00408), Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FTLDc 01GI1007A). MS was supported by the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. CW was supported by the Vaillant Stiftunginfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Treatment strategies and clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer:A multicenter prospective cohort
Introduction: Since current studies on locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) mainly report from single, high-volume centers, it is unclear if outcomes can be translated to daily clinical practice. This study provides treatment strategies and clinical outcomes within a multicenter cohort of unselected patients with LAPC. Materials and methods: Consecutive patients with LAPC according to Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group criteria, were prospectively included in 14 centers from April 2015 until December 2017. A centralized expert panel reviewed response according to RECIST v1.1 and potential surgical resectability. Primary outcome was median overall survival (mOS), stratified for primary treatment strategy. Results: Overall, 422 patients were included, of whom 77% (n = 326) received chemotherapy. The majority started with FOLFIRINOX (77%, 252/326) with a median of six cycles (IQR 4-10). Gemcitabine monotherapy was given to 13% (41/326) of patients and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine to 10% (33/326), with a median of two (IQR 3-5) and three (IQR 3-5) cycles respectively. The mOS of the entire cohort was 10 months (95%CI 9-11). In patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine monotherapy, or nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, mOS was 14 (95%CI 13-15), 9 (95%CI 8-10), and 9 months (95%CI 8-10), respectively. A resection was performed in 13% (32/252) of patients after FOLFIRINOX, resulting in a mOS of 23 months (95%CI 12-34). Conclusion: This multicenter unselected cohort of patients with LAPC resulted in a 14 month mOS and a 13% resection rate after FOLFIRINOX. These data put previous results in perspective, enable us to inform patients with more accurate survival numbers and will support decision-making in clinical practice. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd
Uptake of hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy in carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair variants:a Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database report
Purpose: This study aimed to report the uptake of hysterectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) to prevent gynaecological cancers (risk-reducing surgery [RRS]) in carriers of pathogenic MMR (path_MMR) variants. Methods: The Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD) was used to investigate RRS by a cross-sectional study in 2292 female path_MMR carriers aged 30-69 years. Results: Overall, 144, 79, and 517 carriers underwent risk-reducing hysterectomy, BSO, or both combined, respectively. Two-thirds of procedures before 50 years of age were combined hysterectomy and BSO, and 81% of all procedures included BSO. Risk-reducing hysterectomy was performed before age 50 years in 28%, 25%, 15%, and 9%, and BSO in 26%, 25%, 14% and 13% of path_MLH1, path_MSH2, path_MSH6, and path_PMS2 carriers, respectively. Before 50 years of age, 107 of 188 (57%) BSO and 126 of 204 (62%) hysterectomies were performed in women without any prior cancer, and only 5% (20/392) were performed simultaneously with colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Conclusion: Uptake of RRS before 50 years of age was low, and RRS was rarely undertaken in association with surgical treatment of CRC. Uptake of RRS aligned poorly with gene-and age-associated risk estimates for endometrial or ovarian cancer that were published recently from PLSD and did not correspond well with current clinical guidelines. The reasons should be clarified. Decision-making on opting for or against RRS and its timing should be better aligned with predicted risk and mortality for endometrial and ovarian cancer in Lynch syn-drome to improve outcomes. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd
The predictive ability of the 313 variant–based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant
PURPOSE : To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant–based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score
(PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes.
METHODS : We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402
prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2
(CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall
and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk.
RESULTS : For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard
ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06–1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive
PRS313, HR= 1.15, 95% CI (1.07–1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological
characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative
PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes,
respectively.
CONCLUSION : The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the
PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decisionmaking.This work was supported by the Alpe d’HuZes/Dutch Cancer Society (KWF
Kankerbestrijding) project 6253 and Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding)
project UL2014-7473. CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were
supported by Cancer Research–UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. G.C.T.
and A.B.S. are NHMRC Research Fellows. iCOGS: the European Community’s Seventh
Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-
223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/
A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/
A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS
initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112–the GAME-ON
initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-
87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade
(PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research
Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. OncoArray: the PERSPECTIVE
and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects funded by the Government of Canada through
Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministère de
l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec,
and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation; the NCI Genetic Associations and
Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) initiative and Discovery, Biology and Risk of
Inherited Variants in Breast Cancer (DRIVE) project (NIH grants U19 CA148065 and
X01HG007492); and Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118 and C1287/A16563). BCFR:
UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this paper does
not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of
the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does
mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement
by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research
Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation.
BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). BRI-COH: S.
L.N. is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Professorship. CNIO:
Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research
reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the
National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828
(PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director,
National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors
and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of
Health. CONSIT TEAM: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 number
16732) to P. Peterlongo. DEMOKRITOS: European Union (European Social Fund–ESF)
and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong
Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)–Research Funding
Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA.
Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. DFKZ: German
Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and
C1287/A11990. D.G.E. and F.L. are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical
Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research
and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the
Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal
Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. R.E. and E.B. are supported by Cancer Research UK
Grant C5047/A8385. R.E. is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical
Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: A.K.G. was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545), The
University of Kansas Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA168524), The Kansas
Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority
Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical
Sciences Professorship. FPGMX: A. Vega is supported by the Spanish Health Research
Foundation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), partially supported by FEDER funds
through Research Activity Intensification Program (contract grant numbers: INT15/
00070, INT16/00154, INT17/00133), and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica
en Red de Enferemdades Raras CIBERER (ACCI 2016: ER17P1AC7112/2018);
Autonomous Government of Galicia (Consolidation and structuring program:
IN607B), and by the Fundación Mutua Madrileña. The German Consortium for
Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) is funded by the German Cancer
Aid (110837, 70111850, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne) and the Ministry for
Innovation, Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (#323-
8.0302.16.02-132142). GEMO: initially funded by the French National Institute of
Cancer (INCa, PHRC Ile de France, grant AOR 01 082, 2001-2003, grant 2013-1-BCB-01-
ICH-1), the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award (2004), the Association
for International Cancer Research (2008-2010), and the Foundation ARC pour la
recherche sur le cancer (grant PJA 20151203365). It also received support from the
Canadian Institute of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast
Cancer” program (2008–2013), and the European commission FP7, Project
«Collaborative Ovarian, breast and prostate Gene-environment Study (COGS),
Large-scale integrating project» (2009–2013). GEMO is currently supported by the
INCa grant SHS-E-SP 18-015. GEORGETOWN: The Survey, Recruitment, and Biospecimen
Collection Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-
CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research,
and the Nina Hyde Center for Breast Cancer Research. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a
senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from
IWT. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301
CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development
FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer
Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HEBON study is supported by the
Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink
Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46
and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HRBCP: Hong Kong Sanatorium and
Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation,
National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center.
HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745, NKFI_OTKA K-112228
and TUDFO/51757/2019-ITM. ICO: Contract grant sponsor: Supported by the Carlos III
National Health Institute funded by FEDER funds–a way to build Europe–(PI16/00563,
PI19/00553 and CIBERONC); the Government of Catalonia (Pla estratègic de recerca i
innovaciĂł en salut (PERIS) Project MedPerCan, 2017SGR1282 and 2017SGR496); and
CERCA program.IHCC: supported by grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004 and the program
of the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the name “Regional Initiative
of Excellence” in 2019–2022 project number 002/RID/2018/19 amount of financing 12
000 000 PLN. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by
the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of
Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program–grant
CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export
Trade–grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5×1000” Istituto
Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The
National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer
Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer
Foundation of Western Australia. KOHBRA: the Korea Health Technology R&D Project
through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National
R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea
(HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). KUMC: NIGMS P20 GM130423 (to A.K.G.). MAYO: NIH
grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research
Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer
Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast
Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade.
Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh
Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018).
MODSQUAD: MH CZ–DRO (MMCI, 00209805) and LM2018125, MEYS–NPS I–LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC: the
Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer
Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support
Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the Intramural
Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services
contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc,
Rockville, MD. NICCC: Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and
the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation
for Basic Research (grants 17-00-00171, 18-515-45012 and 19-515-25001). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative
Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA
37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: Ohio State University
Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: supported by the “Fondazione Pisa per la
Scienza, project nr. 127/2016. Maria A Caligo was supported by the grant: “n. 127/16
Caratterizzazione delle varianti missenso nei geni BRCA1/2 per la valutazione del
rischio di tumore al seno” by Fondazione Pisa, Pisa, Italy; SEABASS: Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/
06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association.
SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of
Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996,
1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the
Entertainment Industry Fund National Women’s Cancer Research Alliance and the
Breast Cancer research Foundation. O.I.O. is an ACS Clinical Research Professor. UCLA:
Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research
Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive
Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Research h UK. UPENN: Breast Cancer Research
Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for
BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency,
Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: B.Y.K. is funded by the
American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and
the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), grant
UL1TR000124.https://www.gimjournal.org/am2023Genetic
The predictive ability of the 313 variant–based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant
Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant–based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes. Methods: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk. Results: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06–1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07–1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively. Conclusion: The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making
Clinical value of cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chain in semantic dementia
Background: Semantic dementia (SD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterised by progressive language problems falling within the clinicopathological spectrum of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). The development of disease-modifying agents may be facilitated by the relative clinical and pathological homogeneity of SD, but we need robust monitoring biomarkers to measure their efficacy. In different FTLD subtypes, neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising marker, therefore we investigated the utility of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) NfL in SD. Methods: This large retrospective multicentre study compared cross-sectional CSF NfL levels of 162 patients with SD with 65 controls. CSF NfL levels of patients were correlated with clinical parameters (including survival), neuropsychological test scores and regional grey matter atrophy (including longitudinal data in a subset). Results: CSF NfL levels were significantly higher in patients with SD (median: 2326 pg/mL, IQR: 1628-3593) than in controls (577 (446-766), p<0.001). Higher CSF NfL levels were moderately associated with naming impairment as measured by the Boston Naming Test (rs=-0.32, p=0.002) and with smaller grey matter volume of the parahippocampal gyri (rs=-0.31, p=0.004). However, cross-sectional CSF NfL levels were not associated with progression of grey matter atrophy and did not predict survival. Conclusion: CSF NfL is a promising biomarker in the diagnostic process of SD, although it has limited cross-sectional monitoring or prognostic abilities.ImPhys/Quantitative Imagin
Mutational Signature Analysis Reveals NTHL1 Deficiency to Cause a Multi-tumor Phenotype
Contains fulltext :
201344.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access
De novo variants in CAMTA1 cause a syndrome variably associated with spasticity, ataxia, and intellectual disability
Previously, intragenic CAMTA1 copy number variants (CNVs) have been shown to cause non-progressive, congenital ataxia with or without intellectual disability (OMIM#614756). However, ataxia, intellectual disability, and dysmorphic features were all incompletely penetrant, even within families. Here, we describe four patients with de novo nonsense, frameshift or missense CAMTA1 variants. All four patients predominantly manifested features of ataxia and/or spasticity. Borderline intellectual disability and dysmorphic features were both present in one patient only, and other neurological and behavioural symptoms were variably present. Neurodevelopmental delay was found to be mild. Our findings indicate that also nonsense, frameshift and missense variants in CAMTA1 can cause a spastic ataxia syndrome as the main phenotype