Klein, Christopher J.

ObjectiveMutations in Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (CMT) genes are the cause of rare familial forms of polyneuropathy. Whether allelic variability in CMT genes is also associated with common forms of polyneuropathy—considered “acquired” in medical parlance—is unknown. Chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) occurs commonly in cancer patients and is individually unpredictable. We used CIPN as a clinical model to investigate the association of non‐CMT polyneuropathy with CMT genes.MethodsA total of 269 neurologically asymptomatic cancer patients were enrolled in the clinical trial Alliance N08C1 to receive the neurotoxic drug paclitaxel, while undergoing prospective assessments for polyneuropathy. Forty‐nine CMT genes were analyzed by targeted massively parallel sequencing of genomic DNA from patient blood.ResultsA total of 119 (of 269) patients were identified from the 2 ends of the polyneuropathy phenotype distribution: patients that were most and least susceptible to paclitaxel polyneuropathy. The CMT gene PRX was found to be deleteriously mutated in patients who were susceptible to CIPN but not in controls (p = 8 × 10−3). Genetic variation in another CMT gene, ARHGEF10, was highly significantly associated with CIPN (p = 5 × 10−4). Three nonsynonymous recurrent single nucleotide variants contributed to the ARHGEF10 signal: rs9657362, rs2294039, and rs17683288. Of these, rs9657362 had the strongest effect (odds ratio = 4.8, p = 4 × 10−4).InterpretationThe results reveal an association of CMT gene allelic variability with susceptibility to CIPN. The findings raise the possibility that other acquired polyneuropathies may also be codetermined by genetic etiological factors, of which some may be related to genes already known to cause the phenotypically related Mendelian disorders of CMT. Ann Neurol 2014;76:727–737

Abstract Purpose: Clustering of neural autoantibodies in patients with paraneoplastic neurologic disorders may predict tumor type. A mathematical analysis of neural autoantibody clusters was performed in 78,889 patients undergoing evaluation for a suspected paraneoplastic autoimmune neurologic disorder. Tumor predictive autoantibody profiles were confirmed in sera from patients with histologically proven tonsillar cancer, thymoma, and lung cancer. Patients and Methods: Of note, 78,889 patient sera were tested for 15 defined neural autoantibodies (1.2 million tests). The observed and hypothesized frequencies of autoantibody clusters were compared and their tumor associations defined. A tumor validation study comprised serum from 368 patients with a variety of tumors (thymoma, lung, or tonsil). Results: Informative oncological associations included (i) thymoma in 85% of patients with muscle striational, acetylcholine receptor antibodies plus CRMP5 autoantibodies; (ii) lung carcinoma in 80% with both P/Q-type and N-type calcium channel antibodies plus SOX1-IgG; and (iii) in men, prostate carcinoma frequency more than doubled when striational and muscle AChR specificities were accompanied by ganglionic AChR antibody. In women, amphiphysin-IgG alone was associated commonly with breast carcinoma, but amphiphysin-IgG, coexisting with antineuronal nuclear autoantibody-type 1 or CRMP5-IgG, was associated with lung cancer (P < 0.0001). In the validation cohorts, many tumor-associated profiles were encountered that matched the clusters identified in the screening study (e.g., 15% of thymoma patients had striational, acetylcholine receptor antibodies plus collapsin response-mediator protein-5 autoantibodies). Conclusions: Neural autoantibodies commonly coexist in specific clusters that are identifiable by comprehensive screening. Signature autoantibody clusters may predict a patient's cancer risk and type. Clin Cancer Res; 20(14); 3862–9. ©2014 AACR.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe Cl. NPhys Trial 3 showed that attributes of nerve conduction (NC) were without significant intraobserver differences, although there were significant interobserver differences. Methods: Trial 4 tested whether use of written instructions and pretrial agreement on techniques and use of standard reference values, diagnostic percentile values, or broader categorization of abnormality could reduce significant interobserver disagreement and improve agreement among clinical neurophysiologists. Results: The Trial 4 modifications markedly decreased, but did not eliminate, significant interobserver differences of measured attributes of NC. Use of standard reference values and defined percentile values of abnormality decreased interobserver disagreement and improved agreement of judgment of abnormality among evaluators. Therefore, the same clinical neurophysiologist should perform repeat NCs of therapeutic trial patients. Conclusions: Differences in interobserver judgment of abnormality decrease with use of common standard reference values and a defined percentile level of abnormality, providing a rationale for their use in therapeutic trials and medical practice. Muscle Nerve 50: 900–908, 2014