4.5 Article

Kabuki syndrome: international consensus diagnostic criteria

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 89-95

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105625

关键词

-

资金

  1. Telethon - Italy [GGP13231]
  2. Jerome Lejeune Foundation
  3. Daunia Plast

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Kabuki syndrome (KS) is a clinically recognisable syndrome in which 70% of patients have a pathogenic variant in KMT2D or KDM6A. Understanding the function of these genes opens the door to targeted therapies. The purpose of this report is to propose diagnostic criteria for KS, particularly when molecular genetic testing is equivocal. Methods A n international group of experts created consensus diagnostic criteria for KS. Systematic PubMed searches returned 70 peer-reviewed publications in which at least one individual with molecularly confirmed KS was reported. The clinical features of individuals with known mutations were reviewed. Results T he authors propose that a definitive diagnosis can be made in an individual of any age with a history of infantile hypotonia, developmental delay and/ or intellectual disability, and one or both of the following major criteria: (1) a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in KMT2D or KDM6A; and (2) typical dysmorphic features (defined below) at some point of life. Typical dysmorphic features include long palpebral fissures with eversion of the lateral third of the lower eyelid and two or more of the following: (1) arched and broad eyebrows with the lateral third displaying notching or sparseness; (2) short columella with depressed nasal tip; (3) large, prominent or cupped ears; and (4) persistent fingertip pads. Further criteria for a probable and possible diagnosis, including a table of suggestive clinical features, are presented. Conclusion A s targeted therapies for KS are being developed, it is important to be able to make the correct diagnosis, either with or without molecular genetic confirmation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据