4.7 Article

Sensitive and efficient detection of RB1 gene mutations enhances care for families with retinoblastoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 253-269

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/345651

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Timely molecular diagnosis of RB1 mutations enables earlier treatment, lower risk, and better health outcomes for patients with retinoblastoma; empowers families to make informed family-planning decisions; and costs less than conventional surveillance. However, complexity has hindered clinical implementation of molecular diagnosis. The majority of RB1 mutations are unique and distributed throughout the RB1 gene, with no real hot spots. We devised a sensitive and efficient strategy to identify RB1 mutations that combines quantitative multiplex polymerase chain reaction (QM-PCR), double-exon sequencing, and promoter-targeted methylation-sensitive PCR. Optimization of test order by stochastic dynamic programming and the development of allele-specific PCR for four recurrent point mutations decreased the estimated turnaround time to <3 wk and decreased direct costs by one-third. The multistep method reported here detected 89% (199/224) of mutations in bilaterally affected probands and both mutant alleles in 84% (112/134) of tumors from unilaterally affected probands. For 23 of 27 exons and the promoter region, QM-PCR was a highly accurate measure of deletions and insertions (accuracy 95%). By revealing those family members who did not carry the mutation found in the related proband, molecular analysis enabled 97 at-risk children from 20 representative families to avoid 313 surveillance examinations under anesthetic and 852 clinic visits. The average savings in direct costs from clinical examinations avoided by children in these families substantially exceeded the cost of molecular testing. Moreover, health care savings continue to accrue, as children in succeeding generations avoid unnecessary repeated anaesthetics and examinations.

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

4.7
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