IMPORTANCE: For patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa and clinicians alike, phenotypic variability can be challenging because it complicates counseling regarding patients' likely visual prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical findings from patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa with 13 distinct RPGR mutations and assess for phenotypic concordance or variability. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review of data collected from 1985 to 2011. SETTING: Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan. PATIENTS: A total of 42 patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa with mutations in RPGR. Age at first visit ranged from 4 to 53 years, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 11 visits (median follow-up time, 5.5 years; range, 1.4-32.7 years, for 23 patients with >1 visit). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical data assessed for concordance included visual acuity (VA), Goldmann visual fields (GVFs), and full-field electroretinography (ERG). Electroretinography phenotype (cone-rod vs rod-cone dysfunction) was defined by the extent of photopic vs scotopic abnormality. Qualitative GVF phenotype was determined by the GVF pattern, where central or peripheral loss suggested cone or rod dysfunction, respectively. Goldmann visual fields were also quantified and compared among patients. RESULTS: Each mutation was detected in 2 or more related or unrelated patients. Five mutations in 11 patients displayed strong concordance of VA, while 4 mutations in 16 patients revealed moderate concordance of VA. A definitive cone-rod or rod-cone ERG pattern consistent among patients was found in 6 of 13 mutations (46.2%); the remaining mutations were characterized by patients demonstrating both phenotypes or who had limited data or nonrecordable ERG values. Concordant GVF phenotypes (7 rod-cone pattern vs 4 cone-rod pattern) were seen in 11 of 13 mutations (84.6%). All 6 mutations displaying a constant ERG pattern within the mutation group revealed a GVF phenotype consistent with the ERG findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While VA and ERG phenotypes are concordant in only some patients carrying identical mutations, assessment of GVF phenotypes revealed stronger phenotypic conservation. Phenotypic concordance is important for establishing proper counseling of patients diagnosed as having X-linked retinitis pigmentosa, as well as for establishing accurate patient selection and efficacy monitoring in therapeutic trials.
IMPORTANCE: For patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa and clinicians alike, phenotypic variability can be challenging because it complicates counseling regarding patients' likely visual prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical findings from patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa with 13 distinct RPGR mutations and assess for phenotypic concordance or variability. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review of data collected from 1985 to 2011. SETTING: Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan. PATIENTS: A total of 42 patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa with mutations in RPGR. Age at first visit ranged from 4 to 53 years, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 11 visits (median follow-up time, 5.5 years; range, 1.4-32.7 years, for 23 patients with >1 visit). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical data assessed for concordance included visual acuity (VA), Goldmann visual fields (GVFs), and full-field electroretinography (ERG). Electroretinography phenotype (cone-rod vs rod-cone dysfunction) was defined by the extent of photopic vs scotopic abnormality. Qualitative GVF phenotype was determined by the GVF pattern, where central or peripheral loss suggested cone or rod dysfunction, respectively. Goldmann visual fields were also quantified and compared among patients. RESULTS: Each mutation was detected in 2 or more related or unrelated patients. Five mutations in 11 patients displayed strong concordance of VA, while 4 mutations in 16 patients revealed moderate concordance of VA. A definitive cone-rod or rod-cone ERG pattern consistent among patients was found in 6 of 13 mutations (46.2%); the remaining mutations were characterized by patients demonstrating both phenotypes or who had limited data or nonrecordable ERG values. Concordant GVF phenotypes (7 rod-cone pattern vs 4 cone-rod pattern) were seen in 11 of 13 mutations (84.6%). All 6 mutations displaying a constant ERG pattern within the mutation group revealed a GVF phenotype consistent with the ERG findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While VA and ERG phenotypes are concordant in only some patients carrying identical mutations, assessment of GVF phenotypes revealed stronger phenotypic conservation. Phenotypic concordance is important for establishing proper counseling of patients diagnosed as having X-linked retinitis pigmentosa, as well as for establishing accurate patient selection and efficacy monitoring in therapeutic trials.
Authors: A J Mears; S Hiriyanna; R Vervoort; B Yashar; L Gieser; S Fahrner; S P Daiger; J R Heckenlively; P A Sieving; A F Wright; A Swaroop Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2000-09-01 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Debra K Breuer; Beverly M Yashar; Elena Filippova; Suja Hiriyanna; Robert H Lyons; Alan J Mears; Bersabell Asaye; Ceren Acar; Raf Vervoort; Alan F Wright; Maria A Musarella; Patricia Wheeler; Ian MacDonald; Alessandro Iannaccone; David Birch; Dennis R Hoffman; Gerald A Fishman; John R Heckenlively; Samuel G Jacobson; Paul A Sieving; Anand Swaroop Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2002-04-30 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: F Yesim K Demirci; Brian W Rigatti; Gaiping Wen; Amy L Radak; Tammy S Mah; Corrine L Baic; Elias I Traboulsi; Tiina Alitalo; Juliane Ramser; Michael B Gorin Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2002-02-20 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Radha Ayyagari; F Yesim Demirci; Jiafan Liu; Eve L Bingham; Heather Stringham; Laura E Kakuk; Michael Boehnke; Michael B Gorin; Julia E Richards; Paul A Sieving Journal: Genomics Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.736
Authors: Robert K Koenekoop; Magali Loyer; Collette K Hand; Huda Al Mahdi; Olga Dembinska; Raquel Beneish; Julie Racine; Guy A Rouleau Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Dong-Hyun Hong; Basil Pawlyk; Maxim Sokolov; Katherine J Strissel; Jun Yang; Brian Tulloch; Alan F Wright; Vadim Y Arshavsky; Tiansen Li Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: R Jalkanen; F Y Demirci; H Tyynismaa; T Bech-Hansen; A Meindl; M Peippo; M Mäntyjärvi; M B Gorin; T Alitalo Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: R Vervoort; A Lennon; A C Bird; B Tulloch; R Axton; M G Miano; A Meindl; T Meitinger; A Ciccodicola; A F Wright Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Kollu N Rao; Linjing Li; Wei Zhang; Richard S Brush; Raju V S Rajala; Hemant Khanna Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2016-01-24 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Michael P Barry; Ava K Bittner; Liancheng Yang; Rebecca Marcus; Mian Haris Iftikhar; Gislin Dagnelie Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: William A Beltran; Artur V Cideciyan; Alfred S Lewin; William W Hauswirth; Samuel G Jacobson; Gustavo D Aguirre Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: Debra A Thompson; Robin R Ali; Eyal Banin; Kari E Branham; John G Flannery; David M Gamm; William W Hauswirth; John R Heckenlively; Alessandro Iannaccone; K Thiran Jayasundera; Naheed W Khan; Robert S Molday; Mark E Pennesi; Thomas A Reh; Richard G Weleber; David N Zacks Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jason Charng; Artur V Cideciyan; Samuel G Jacobson; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Malgorzata Swider; Alejandro J Roman; Rebecca Sheplock; Manisha Anand; Marc C Peden; Hemant Khanna; Elise Heon; Alan F Wright; Anand Swaroop Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 6.150