Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 26;15(3):773.
doi: 10.3390/cancers15030773.

Performance Metrics of the Scoring System for the Diagnosis of the Beckwith-Wiedemann Spectrum (BWSp) and Its Correlation with Cancer Development

Affiliations

Performance Metrics of the Scoring System for the Diagnosis of the Beckwith-Wiedemann Spectrum (BWSp) and Its Correlation with Cancer Development

Maria Luca et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Different scoring systems for the clinical diagnosis of the Beckwith-Wiedemann spectrum (BWSp) have been developed over time, the most recent being the international consensus score. Here we try to validate and provide data on the performance metrics of these scoring systems of the 2018 international consensus and the previous ones, relating them to BWSp features, molecular tests, and the probability of cancer development in a cohort of 831 patients. The consensus scoring system had the best performance (sensitivity 0.85 and specificity 0.43). In our cohort, the diagnostic yield of tests on blood-extracted DNA was low in patients with a low consensus score (~20% with a score = 2), and the score did not correlate with cancer development. We observed hepatoblastoma (HB) in 4.3% of patients with UPD(11)pat and Wilms tumor in 1.9% of patients with isolated lateralized overgrowth (ILO). We validated the efficacy of the currently used consensus score for BWSp clinical diagnosis. Based on our observation, a first-tier analysis of tissue-extracted DNA in patients with <4 points may be considered. We discourage the use of the consensus score value as an indicator of the probability of cancer development. Moreover, we suggest considering cancer screening for negative patients with ILO (risk ~2%) and HB screening for patients with UPD(11)pat (risk ~4%).

Keywords: Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome spectrum; genomic imprinting; score; tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of the cohort. In the inner circle, patients with a negative test are in yellow, and patients with a positive test are blue; in the outer circle, patients with less than 4 points and a negative test are in gray; patients with a clinical diagnosis and/or positive test are in blue.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Molecular subgroups per each point of the consensus score [10]. Percentages of the negative cases (in gray) refer to the total. Percentages in the four subgroups refer to the total of positive cases, including gain of methylation at imprinting center 1 (IC1-GoM, in green), loss of methylation at imprinting center 2 (IC2-LoM in orange), paternal uniparental disomy of the 11p15.5 chromosomal region (UPD(11)pat, in blue), and pathogenic variants in CDKN1C (CDKN1c mut, in red).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Molecular breakdown for each of the points of the consensus scoring system [10]. Percentages of the negative cases (in gray) refer to the total, while percentages in the four subgroups refer to the total of positive cases including gain of methylation at imprinting center 1 (IC1-GoM, in green), loss of methylation at imprinting center 2 (IC2-LoMm in orange), paternal uniparental disomy of the 11p15.5 chromosomal region (UPD(11)pat, in blue), and pathogenic variants in CDKN1C (CDKN1c mut, in red).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of the several scoring systems for BWSp proposed over time, evaluated against the outcomes of the molecular tests [2,3,10,14,15,16,17]. Each of the ROC curves of the various scoring system (in black) is compared with the ROC curve of the consensus criteria by Brioude et al. 2018 [10] (red line). The ROC curve characteristics, area under the curve (AUC), standard error (st.Err), 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI), and p-value are given in Table 4.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mussa A., Russo S., De Crescenzo A., Chiesa N., Molinatto C., Selicorni A., Richiardi L., Larizza L., Silengo M.C., Riccio A., et al. Prevalence of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome in North West of Italy. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2013;161:2481–2486. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36080. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ibrahim A., Kirby G., Hardy C., Dias R.P., Tee L., Lim D., Berg J., MacDonald F., Nightingale P., Maher E.R. Methylation analysis and diagnostics of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome in 1000 subjects. Clin. Epigenetics. 2014;6:11. doi: 10.1186/1868-7083-6-11. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weksberg R., Nishikawa J., Caluseriu O., Fei Y.L., Shuman C., Wei C., Steele L., Cameron J., Smith A., Ambus I., et al. Tumor development in the Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome is associated with a variety of constitutional molecular 11p15 alterations including imprinting defects of KCNQ1OT1. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2001;10:2989–3000. doi: 10.1093/hmg/10.26.2989. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mussa A., Russo S., De Crescenzo A., Freschi A., Calzari L., Maitz S., Macchiaiolo M., Molinatto C., Baldassarre G., Mariani M., et al. (Epi)genotype-phenotype correlations in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2016;24:183–190. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.88. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maas S.M., Vansenne F., Kadouch D.J., Ibrahim A., Bliek J., Hopman S., Mannens M.M., Merks J.H., Maher E.R., Hennekam R.C. Phenotype, cancer risk, and surveillance in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome depending on molecular genetic subgroups. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2016;170:2248–2260. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37801. - DOI - PubMed