Pheo-type: A diagnostic gene-expression assay for the classification of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma

Context: Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) are heritable neoplasms that can be classified into gene-expression subtypes corresponding to their underlying specific genetic drivers. Objective: This study aimed to develop a diagnostic and research tool (Pheo-type) capable of classifying PPGL tumors into gene-expression subtypes that could be used to guide and interpret genetic testing, determine surveillance programs, and aid in elucidation of PPGL biology. Design: A compendium of published microarray data representing 205 PPGL tumors was used for the selection of subtype-specific genes that were then translated to the Nanostring gene-expression platform. A support vector machine was trained on the microarray dataset and then tested on an independent Nanostring dataset representing 38 familial and sporadic cases of PPGL of known genotype (RET, NF1, TMEM127, MAX, HRAS, VHL, and SDHx). Different classifier models involving between three and six subtypes were compared for their discrimination potential. Results: A gene set of 46 genes and six endogenous controls was selected representing six known PPGL subtypes; RTK1–3 (RET, NF1, TMEM127, and HRAS), MAX-like, VHL, and SDHx. Of 38 test cases, 34 (90%) were correctly predicted to six subtypes based on the known genotype to gene-expression subtype association. Removal of the RTK2 subtype from training, characterized by an admixture of tumor and normal adrenal cortex, improved the classification accuracy (35/38). Consolidation of RTK and pseudohypoxic PPGL subtypes to four- and then three-class architectures improved the classification accuracy for clinical application. Conclusions: The Pheo-type gene-expression assay is a reliable method for predicting PPGL genotype using routine diagnostic tumor samples.

Malaria rapid diagnostic test performance: Results of WHO product testing of malaria RDTs: Round 6 (2014-2015)

Overview This report, published in conjunction with a summary overview of results of rounds 1–6, is the sixth in a series of laboratory-based evaluations of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria. It provides a comparative measure of their performance in a standardized way to distinguish between well and poorly performing tests. It can be used by malaria control programmes and guide WHO procurement recommendations for these diagnostic tools. The evaluation reported here was a joint project of the WHO Global Malaria Programme, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the WHO-FIND Malaria RDT Evaluation Programme. The project was financed by FIND through a grant from UNITAID.

The clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts. A group of 21 experienced general practitioners were asked to complete the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI) and a set of 10 clinical reasoning problems (CRPs) to evaluate their clinical reasoning. Both the DTI and the CRPs were scored, and the CRP response patterns of each GP examined in terms of the number and type of errors contained in them. Analysis of these data showed that six GPs were able to reach the correct diagnosis using significantly less clinical information than their colleagues. These GPs also made significantly fewer interpretation errors but scored lower on both the DTI and the CRPs. Additionally, this analysis showed that more than 20% of misdiagnoses occurred despite no errors being made in the identification and interpretation of relevant clinical information. These results indicate that these six GPs diagnose efficiently, effectively and accurately using relatively few clinical data and can therefore be classified as diagnostic experts. They also indicate that a major cause of misdiagnoses is failure to properly integrate clinical data. We suggest that increased emphasis on this step in the reasoning process should prove beneficial to the development of clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students.

Review of Diagnostic Screening Instruments for Alcohol and Other Drug Use and Other Psychiatric Disorders

In recent years there has been a growing recognition that many people with drug or alcohol problems are also experiencing a range of other psychiatric and psychological problems. The presence of concurrent psychiatric or psychological problems is likely to impact on the success of treatment services. These problems vary greatly, from undetected major psychiatric illnesses that meet internationally accepted diagnostic criteria such as those outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (1994), to less defined feelings of low mood and anxiety that do not meet diagnostic criteria but nevertheless impact on an individual’s sense of wellbeing and affect their quality of life. Similarly, the presence of a substance misuse problem among those suffering from a major psychiatric illness, often goes undetected. For example, the use of illicit drugs such as cannabis and amphetamine is higher among those individuals suffering from schizophrenia (Hall, 1992) and the misuse of alcohol in people suffering from schizophrenia is well documented (e.g., Gorelick et al., 1990; Searles et al., 1990; Soyka et al., 1993). High rates of alcohol misuse have also been reported in a number of groups including women presenting for treatment with a primary eating disorder (Holderness, Brooks Gunn, & Warren, 1994), individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (Seidel, Gusman and Aubueg, 1994), and those suffering from anxiety and depression. Despite considerable evidence of high levels of co-morbidity, drug and alcohol treatment agencies and mainstream psychiatric services often fail to identify and respond to concurrent psychiatric or drug and alcohol problems, respectively. The original review was conducted as a first step in providing clinicians with information on screening and diagnostic instruments that may be used to assess previously unidentified co-morbidity. The current revision was conducted to extend the original review by updating psychometric findings on measures in the original review, and incorporating other frequently used measures that were not previously included. The current revision has included information regarding special populations, specifically Indigenous Australians, older persons and adolescents. The objectives were to: ● update the original review of AOD and psychiatric screening/diagnostic instruments, ● recommend when these instruments should be used, by whom and how they should be interpreted, ● identify limitations and provide recommendations for further research, ● refer the reader to pertinent Internet sites for further information and/or purchasing of assessment instruments.