Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) is an overgrowth syndrome demonstrating heterogeneous molecular alterations of two imprinted domains on chromosome 11p15. The most common molecular alterations include loss of methylation at the proximal imprinting center, IC2, paternal uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 11p15 and hypermethylation at the distal imprinting center, IC1. An increased incidence of female monozygotic twins discordant for BWS has been reported. The molecular basis for eleven such female twin pairs has been demonstrated to be a loss of methylation at IC2, whereas only one male monozygotic twin pair has been reported with this molecular defect. We report here two new pairs of male monozygotic twins. One pair is discordant for BWS; the affected twin exhibits paternal UPD for chromosome 11p15 whereas the unaffected twin does not. The second male twin pair is concordant for BWS and both twins of the pair demonstrate hypermethylation at IC1. Thus, this report expands the known molecular etiologies for BWS twins. Interestingly, these findings demonstrate a new epigenotype-phenotype correlation in BWS twins. That is, while female monozygotic twins with BWS are likely to show loss of imprinting at IC2, male monozygotic twins with BWS reflect the molecular heterogeneity seen in BWS singletons. These data underscore the need for molecular testing in BWS twins, especially in view of the known differences among 11p15 epigenotypes with respect to tumor risk.

No abstract

Recognition of childhood overgrowth and investigation of diagnostic causes is important in anticipating appropriate medical management and facilitating the provision of genetic counseling. New developments in our understanding of the molecular basis and phenotypic expression of overgrowth syndromes provide additional tools in this often challenging process.

Using solid culture, 150 cultures need to be tested for one treatment modification and 30 for DST. The cost of the widespread application of culture will need to be balanced against its impact on treatment decisions in India.

BackgroundHeterogeneity has been noted in the selection and reporting of disease-specific, pediatric outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consequence is invalid results or difficulty comparing results across trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess primary outcome and outcome measure selection and reporting, in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment trials. As secondary objectives, we compared trial disease definition to established concensus guidelines, and the efficacy of current EoE treatments.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL since 2001. We also searched clinical trial registries (portal.nihr.ac.uk; clinicaltrials.gov; isrctn.com; and anzctr.org.au) and references of included studies. We included RCTs of EoE treatment in patients 0–18 years. Two authors independently assessed articles.ResultsEleven studies met inclusion criteria. All identified primary outcomes, however, of 9 unique primary outcomes, only 2 were used in more than one study. In total, 25 unique primary and secondary outcome measures were employed for pediatric EoE treatment trials. Measurement properties and rationale for their selection was rarely provided. Uptake of consensus-based diagnostic criteria was 25 % in trials initiated after 2011. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies obtained, no meta-analysis of treatment efficacy could be undertaken. This SR was limited to exclusively pediatric RCTs.ConclusionsThe results of this study confirm the need for a standardized set of core outcomes that are universally reported in pediatric EoE trials. Consistent disease definition and standardized outcome reporting will facilitate meta-analyses across similar trials and inform future clinical decision-making.Systematic review registration number CRD42013003798