Issues in the diagnosis and management of disorders of sexual development

Disorders or Differences of Sex Development? Views of Affected Individuals on DSD Terminology

Over a decade ago, the participants at the International Consensus Conference on Intersex proposed Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) as an umbrella term for "congenital conditions in which the development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical". The Group recommended the terminology be sensitive to concerns of individuals having these conditions. Yet, controversy rages over the term DSD. This multicentre clinical evaluation study was initiated as part of the European research group dsd-LIFE to evaluate patient-reported outcome. In total, 1,040 individuals with conditions labeled as Disorders of Sex Development were recruited in Poland, Sweden, Germany, France, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. All participants were asked to rate the terms describing their conditions. Overall, a large majority of participants (69%) reported that the term Disorders of Sex Development applied to their condition or that they felt neutral about it. Most participants preferred terms that were specific to their somatic condition. Overall, our data do not support the view that, in general, the term Disorders of Sex Development is insensitive to concerns of affected persons and that it should therefore be abandoned. However, in the clinical encounter, we recommend that clinicians evaluate each patient's preferences.

High Molecular Diagnosis Rate in Undermasculinized Males with Differences in Sex Development Using a Stepwise Approach

Differences of sex development (DSDs) are a constellation of conditions that result in genital ambiguity or complete sex reversal. Although determining the underlying genetic variants can affect clinical management, fewer than half of undermasculinized males ever receive molecular diagnoses. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has improved diagnostic capabilities in several other diseases, and a few small studies suggest that it may improve molecular diagnostic capabilities in DSDs. However, the overall diagnostic rate that can be achieved with NGS for larger groups of patients with DSDs remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to implement a tiered approach to genetic testing in undermasculinized males seen in an interdisciplinary DSD clinic to increase the molecular diagnosis rate in this group. We determined the diagnosis rate in patients undergoing all clinically available testing. Patients underwent a stepwise approach to testing beginning with a karyotype and progressing through individual gene testing, microarray, panel testing, and then to whole-exome sequencing (WES) if no molecular cause was found. Deletion/duplication studies were also done if deletions were suspected. Sixty undermasculinized male participants were seen in an interdisciplinary DSD clinic from 2008 to 2016. Overall, 37/60 (62%) of patients with Y chromosomes and 46% of those who were 46XY received molecular diagnoses. Of the 46,XY patients who underwent all available genetic testing, 18/28 (64%) achieved molecular diagnoses. This study suggests that the addition of WES testing can result in a higher rate of molecular diagnoses compared to genetic panel testing.

Under-reported aspects of diagnosis and treatment addressed in the Dutch-Flemish guideline for comprehensive diagnostics in disorders/differences of sex development

We present key points from the updated Dutch-Flemish guideline on comprehensive diagnostics in disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) that have not been widely addressed in the current (inter)national literature. These points are of interest to physicians working in DSD (expert) centres and to professionals who come across persons with a DSD but have no (or limited) experience in this area. The Dutch-Flemish guideline is based on internationally accepted principles. Recent initiatives striving for uniform high-quality care across Europe, and beyond, such as the completed COST action 1303 and the European Reference Network for rare endocrine conditions (EndoERN), have generated several excellent papers covering nearly all aspects of DSD. The Dutch-Flemish guideline follows these international consensus papers and covers a number of other topics relevant to daily practice. For instance, although next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based molecular diagnostics are becoming the gold standard for genetic evaluation, it can be difficult to prove variant causality or relate the genotype to the clinical presentation. Network formation and centralisation are essential to promote functional studies that assess the effects of genetic variants and to the correct histological assessment of gonadal material from DSD patients, as well as allowing for maximisation of expertise and possible cost reductions. The Dutch-Flemish guidelines uniquely address three aspects of DSD. First, we propose an algorithm for counselling and diagnostic evaluation when a DSD is suspected prenatally, a clinical situation that is becoming more common. Referral to ultrasound sonographers and obstetricians who are part of a DSD team is increasingly important here. Second, we pay special attention to healthcare professionals not working within a DSD centre as they are often the first to diagnose or suspect a DSD, but are not regularly exposed to DSDs and may have limited experience. Their thoughtful communication to patients, carers and colleagues, and the accessibility of protocols for first-line management and efficient referral are essential. Careful communication in the prenatal to neonatal period and the adolescent to adult transition are equally important and relatively under-reported in the literature. Third, we discuss the timing of (NGS-based) molecular diagnostics in the initial workup of new patients and in people with a diagnosis made solely on clinical grounds or those who had earlier genetic testing that is not compatible with current state-of-the-art diagnostics.