Michelle Ratkiewicz1,2, Matthew Pastore1,3, Karen Sharrock McCoy1,2, Rohan Thompson1,2, Don Hayes1,4,2, Shahid Ijaz Sheikh5,6. 1. Department of Pediatrics, the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2. Section of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, ED 444 Wolfe Education Building, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA. 3. Section of Human and Molecular Genetics, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Shahid.Sheikh@nationwidechildrens.org. 6. Section of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, ED 444 Wolfe Education Building, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA. Shahid.Sheikh@nationwidechildrens.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutation identification is being used with increased frequency to aid in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF) in those suspected with CF. Aim of this study was to identify diagnostic outcomes when CFTR mutational analysis was used in CF diagnosis. CFTR mutational analysis results were also compared with sweat chloride results. METHODS: This study was done on all patients at our institution who had CFTR mutation analysis over a sevenyear period since August 2006. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients underwent CFTR mutational analysis. Fifty-one (16.2%) patients had two mutations identified. Among them 32 had positive sweat chloride levels (≥60 mmol/L), while seven had borderline sweat chloride levels (40-59 mmol/L). An additional 70 patients (22.3%) had only one mutation identified. Among them eight had positive sweat chloride levels, and 17 had borderline sweat chloride levels. Fifty-five patients (17.5%) without CFTR mutations had either borderline (n=45) or positive (n=10) sweat chloride results. Three patients with a CF phenotype had negative CFTR analysis but elevated sweat chloride levels. In eighty-three patients (26.4%) CFTR mutational analysis was done without corresponding sweat chloride testing. CONCLUSIONS: Although CFTR mutation analysis has improved the diagnostic capability for CF, its use either as the first step or the only test to diagnose CFTR dysfunction should be discouraged and CF diagnostic guidelines need to be followed.
BACKGROUND: The cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutation identification is being used with increased frequency to aid in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF) in those suspected with CF. Aim of this study was to identify diagnostic outcomes when CFTR mutational analysis was used in CF diagnosis. CFTR mutational analysis results were also compared with sweat chloride results. METHODS: This study was done on all patients at our institution who had CFTR mutation analysis over a sevenyear period since August 2006. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients underwent CFTR mutational analysis. Fifty-one (16.2%) patients had two mutations identified. Among them 32 had positive sweat chloride levels (≥60 mmol/L), while seven had borderline sweat chloride levels (40-59 mmol/L). An additional 70 patients (22.3%) had only one mutation identified. Among them eight had positive sweat chloride levels, and 17 had borderline sweat chloride levels. Fifty-five patients (17.5%) without CFTR mutations had either borderline (n=45) or positive (n=10) sweat chloride results. Three patients with a CF phenotype had negative CFTR analysis but elevated sweat chloride levels. In eighty-three patients (26.4%) CFTR mutational analysis was done without corresponding sweat chloride testing. CONCLUSIONS: Although CFTR mutation analysis has improved the diagnostic capability for CF, its use either as the first step or the only test to diagnose CFTR dysfunction should be discouraged and CF diagnostic guidelines need to be followed.
Authors: J R Riordan; J M Rommens; B Kerem; N Alon; R Rozmahel; Z Grzelczak; J Zielenski; S Lok; N Plavsic; J L Chou Journal: Science Date: 1989-09-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Philip M Farrell; Beryl J Rosenstein; Terry B White; Frank J Accurso; Carlo Castellani; Garry R Cutting; Peter R Durie; Vicky A Legrys; John Massie; Richard B Parad; Michael J Rock; Preston W Campbell Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Patrick R Sosnay; Karen R Siklosi; Fredrick Van Goor; Kyle Kaniecki; Haihui Yu; Neeraj Sharma; Anabela S Ramalho; Margarida D Amaral; Ruslan Dorfman; Julian Zielenski; David L Masica; Rachel Karchin; Linda Millen; Philip J Thomas; George P Patrinos; Mary Corey; Michelle H Lewis; Johanna M Rommens; Carlo Castellani; Christopher M Penland; Garry R Cutting Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-08-25 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Tyler R Ray; Maja Ivanovic; Paul M Curtis; Daniel Franklin; Kerem Guventurk; William J Jeang; Joseph Chafetz; Hannah Gaertner; Grace Young; Steve Rebollo; Jeffrey B Model; Stephen P Lee; John Ciraldo; Jonathan T Reeder; Aurélie Hourlier-Fargette; Amay J Bandodkar; Jungil Choi; Alexander J Aranyosi; Roozbeh Ghaffari; Susanna A McColley; Shannon Haymond; John A Rogers Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 17.956