1. DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 Name of the disease (synonyms)
Campomelic dysplasia (CD; campomelic dwarfism, campomelic syndrome, camptomelic dwarfism, camptomelic dysplasia. Includes acampomelic campomelic dysplasia (ACD))
1.2 OMIM# of the disease
1.3 Name of the analysed genes or DNA/chromosome segments
1.4 OMIM# of the gene(s)
1.5 Mutational spectrum
The majority of mutations are point mutations (missense, nonsense, splice site mutations), but also short insertions/deletions causing frameshifts.1 Missense mutations cluster exclusively in the DNA-binding HMG domain,1 but for two that have been found so far in the dimerization domain of SOX9.2, 3 Larger deletions covering SOX94, 5 or located upstream of SOX95, 6 have occasionally been described. A few percent of cases are due to inversions or translocations interrupting the 1-Mb regulatory domain of SOX9.7, 8, 9, 10 A single publication describes cases with brachydactyly and anonychia, a phenotype compatible with Cooks syndrome MIM 10699511 due to microduplications of noncoding elements 5′ of SOX9. Missense mutations and translocations are overrepresented in CD cases without overt bending of the long bones (ACD).10, 12, 13, 14 Of note, individuals with translocation breakpoints or deletions located greater than 1 Mb upstream of SOX9 only show isolated Pierre Robin sequence and none of the other clinical symptoms of CD/ACD.15, 16 Similarly, several duplications and a deletion of a region ∼0.5 Mb upstream of SOX9 have been reported, which only lead to isolated disorders of sexual development.17, 18, 19
1.6 Analytical methods
The main strategy for mutation screening consists in sequencing of the three SOX9 exons and exon/intron boundaries, which allows for the detection of ∼90% of mutations in CD/ACD cases. This may need to be followed by screening for large deletions by quantitative PCR or array CGH, and by cytogenetic analyses to detect translocations or larger inversions, which brings the detection rate to ∼95%.
1.7 Analytical validation
The existence of a mutation is confirmed by sequencing a second, independent PCR product from the patient’s sample.
1.8 Estimated frequency of the disease
(incidence at birth (‘birth prevalence’) or population prevalence if known to be variable between ethnic groups, please report) 1 in 40 000 to 1 in 80 000.
1.9 Diagnostic setting
Comment:CD is due to de novo heterozygous mutations in SOX9, with recurrence risk of a few percent (estimate ∼5%) due to germ line mosaicism in one of the parents. A predictive prenatal testing is thus only possible if a SOX9 mutation has been identified in a previous pregnancy.
2. TEST CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Analytical sensitivity
(proportion of positive tests if the genotype is present)About 95%.
2.2 Analytical specificity
(proportion of negative tests if the genotype is not present)100%.
2.3 Clinical sensitivity
(proportion of positive tests if the disease is present)
The clinical sensitivity can be dependent on variable factors such as age or family history. In such cases, a general statement should be given, even if a quantification can only be made case by case.
2.4 Clinical specificity
(proportion of negative tests if the disease is not present)
The clinical specificity can be dependent on variable factors such as age or family history. In such cases, a general statement should be given, even if a quantification can only be made case by case.
2.5 Positive clinical predictive value
(life time risk to develop the disease if the test is positive)
Nearly 100%. In rare instances such as far upstream translocations8, 9, 10 or upstream deletions,6 disease symptoms can be very mild so as to go unnoticed. As mentioned above, individuals with translocation breakpoints or deletions located greater than 1 Mb upstream of SOX9 only show isolated Pierre Robin sequence and none of the other clinical symptoms of CD/ACD.15, 16
2.6 Negative clinical predictive value
(probability not to develop the disease if the test is negative)
Assume an increased risk based on family history for a non-affected person. Allelic and locus heterogeneity may need to be considered.
Index case in that family had been tested:
Index case in that family had not been tested:
3. Clinical utility
3.1 (Differential) diagnostics: The tested person is clinically affected
(To be answered if in 1.9 ‘A’ was marked)
3.1.1 Can a diagnosis be made other than through a genetic test?
3.1.2 Describe the burden of alternative diagnostic methods to the patient
Definitive diagnosis of CD is feasible in a majority of affected individuals based on radiological findings, such as bowing of the femora and tibiae, hypoplasia of the scapulae, widely spaced vertical ischia and hypoplastic pubes, and hypoplastic cervical vertebrae. However, the molecular test for SOX9 and its regulatory domain is important for several reasons. Affected individuals with aberration of the regulatory domain and chromosome derangement tend to have better clinical outcomes. In addition, a subset of patients does not show the full skeletal manifestation, but a few skeletal changes only (eg, brachydactyly or Pierre Robin sequence).
3.1.3 How is the cost effectiveness of alternative diagnostic methods to be judged?
Not applicable. Only radiological and molecular assessments are relevant.
3.1.4 Will disease management be influenced by the result of a genetic test?
3.2 Predictive Setting: The tested person is clinically unaffected but carries an increased risk based on family history
(To be answered if in 1.9 ‘B’ was marked)
3.2.1 Will the result of a genetic test influence lifestyle and prevention?
If the test result is positive (please describe)
If the test result is negative (please describe)
3.2.2 Which options in view of lifestyle and prevention does a person at-risk have if no genetic test has been done?
3.3 Genetic risk assessment in family members of a diseased person
(To be answered if in 1.9 ‘C’ was marked)
3.3.1 Does the result of a genetic test resolve the genetic situation in that family?
CD is due to de novo heterozygous SOX9 mutations. Recurrence may occur due to germ line mosaicism in one parent, who may also show somatic mosaicism and may have partial manifestations. Recurrence risk for the next pregnancy cannot be determined exactly, but is estimated to be around 5%. In rare, usually milder cases, transmission of the mutation can be familial.6, 8, 9, 14
3.3.2 Can a genetic test in the index patient save genetic or other tests in family members?
Standard molecular tests of family members in addition to analysis of the index patient will not help to clarify a possible risk for parental germinal mosaicism, as only somatic mosaicism in peripheral blood DNA samples can be tested for.
3.3.3 Does a positive genetic test result in the index patient enable a predictive test in a family member?
As mentioned above, not applicable.
3.4 Prenatal diagnosis
(To be answered if in 1.9 ‘D’ was marked)
Early genetic testing from chorionic villi is possible. Routine ultrasound readily reveals bowing and shortening of the femora. However, meticulous assessment is mandatory to identify more specific findings, such as hypoplastic scapulae. CD, unlike other severe skeletal dysplasias, frequently shows only mild femoral shortening and only mild or no bowing. Thus, ‘ACD’ tends to be overlooked, although its clinical presentation is, in most cases, as severe as that of classic cases.
3.4.1 Does a positive genetic test result in the index patient enable a prenatal diagnostic?
4. IF APPLICABLE, FURTHER CONSEQUENCES OF TESTING
Please assume that the result of a genetic test has no immediate medical consequences. Is there any evidence that a genetic test is nevertheless useful for the patient or his/her relatives? (Please describe)
A positive genetic test outcome provides an unequivocal diagnosis of CD in patients whose clinical and radiological symptoms are not clearcut. This alleviates psychological stress due to uncertain diagnosis, makes additional genetic testing for other suspected skeletal disorders obsolete and allows to offer prenatal testing in a further pregnancy at risk of recurrence of ∼5% from germline mosaicism.
Meyer J, Südbeck P, Held M et al: Mutational analysis of the SOX9 gene in campomelic dysplasia and autosomal sex reversal: lack of genotype/phenotype correlations. Hum Mol Genet 1997; 6: 91–98.
Sock E, Pagon RA, Keymolen K, Lissens W, Wegner M, Scherer G : Loss of DNA-dependent dimerization of the transcription factor SOX9 as a cause for campomelic dysplasia. Hum Mol Genet 2003; 12: 1439–1447.
Bernard P, Tang P, Liu S, Dewing P, Harley VR, Vilain E : Dimerization of SOX9 is required for chondrogenesis, but not for sex determination. Hum Mol Genet 2003; 12: 1755–1765.
Olney PN, Kean LS, Graham D, Elsas LJ, May KM : Campomelic syndrome and deletion of SOX9. Am J Med Genet 1999; 84: 20–24.
Pop R, Conz C, Lindenberg KS et al: Screening of the 1 Mb SOX9 5′ control region by array CGH identifies a large deletion in a case of campomelic dysplasia with XY sex reversal. J Med Genet 2004; 41: e47.
Lecointre C, Pichon O, Hamel A et al: Familial acamopmelic form of campomelic dysplasia caused by a 960 kb deletion upstream of SOX9. Am J Med Genet A 2009; 149A: 1183–1189.
Pfeifer D, Kist R, Dewar K et al: Campomelic dysplasia translocation breakpoints are scattered over 1 Mb proximal to SOX9: evidence for an extended control region. Am J Hum Genet 1999; 65: 111–124.
Velagaleti GV, Bien-Willner GA, Northup JK et al: Position effects due to chromosome breakpoints that map approximately 900 Kb upstream and approximately 1.3 Mb downstream of SOX9 in two patients with campomelic dysplasia. Am J Hum Genet 2005; 76: 652–662.
Hill-Harfe KL, Kaplan L, Stalker HJ et al: Fine mapping of chromosome 17 translocation breakpoints>or=900 kb upstream of SOX9 in acampomelic campomelic dysplasia and a mild, familial skeletal dysplasia. Am J Hum Genet 2005; 76: 663–671.
Leipoldt M, Erdel M, Bien-Willner GA et al: Two novel translocation breakpoints upstream of SOX9 define borders of the proximal and distal breakpoint cluster region in campomelic dysplasia. Clin Genet 2007; 71: 67–75.
Kurth I, Klopocki E, Stricker S et al: Duplications of noncoding elements 5′ of SOX9 are associated with brachydactyly-anonychia. Nat Genet 2009; 41: 862–863.
Thong MK, Scherer G, Kozlowski K, Haan E, Morris L : Acampomelic campomelic dysplasia with SOX9 mutation. Am J Med Genet 2000; 93: 421–425.
Moog U, Jansen NJ, Scherer G, Schrander-Stumpel CT : Acampomelic campomelic syndrome. Am J Med Genet 2001; 104: 239–245.
Mansour S, Offiah AC, McDowall S, Sim P, Tolmie J, Hall C : The phenotype of survivors of campomelic dysplasia. J Med Genet 2002; 39: 597–602.
Benko S, Fantes JA, Amiel J et al: Highly conserved non-coding elements on either side of SOX9 associated with Pierre Robin sequence. Nat Genet 2009; 41: 359–364.
Gordon CT, Tan TY, Benko S, FitzPatrick D, Lyonnet S, Farlie PG : Long-range regulation at the SOX9 locus In development and disease. J Med Genet 2009; 46: 649–656.
Cox JJ, Willatt L, Homfray T, Woods CG : A SOX9 duplication and familial 46,XX developmental testicular disorder. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 91–93.
Vetro A, Ciccone R, Giorda R et al: XX males SRY negative: a confirmed cause of infertility. J Med Genet 2011; 48: 710–712.
Benko S, Gordon CT, Mallet D et al: Disruption of a long-distance regulatory region upstream of SOX9 in isolated disorders of sex development. J Med Genet 2011; 48: 825–830.
Thomas S, Winter R, Lonstein J : The treatment of progressive kyphoscoliosis in camptomelic dysplasia. Spine 1997; 22: 1330–1337.
This work was supported by the EuroGentest2 (Unit 2: ‘Genetic testing as part of health care’), a Coordination Action under FP7 (Grant Agreement Number 261469) and the European Society of Human Genetics.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Scherer, G., Zabel, B. & Nishimura, G. Clinical Utility Gene Card for: campomelic dysplasia. Eur J Hum Genet 21, 792 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.228
This article is cited by
Child's Nervous System (2017)