PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 22, 2026Genes0 citationsOpen Access

Gene Panel Approach to Screen for Hereditary Cerebral Small Vessel Disease: A Proof-of-Concept Study

View Full Paper
CFChiara FerraroSGSilvia GilianiAPAlessandro Pezzini

Key Points

  • This study aims to define the performance of a phenotype-based algorithm for selecting patients to screen for hereditary cerebral small vessel disease.
  • Developed a gene panel to identify variants in 27 candidate genes.
  • Screened patients at a comprehensive stroke center from 2020 to 2023.
  • Categorized participants into High-Probability Group and Low-Probability Group based on pre-screening likelihood of hereditary cSVD.
  • Compared molecular analysis results between the two groups.
  • Detected four pathogenic clinically relevant genetic variants in 6.1% of probands.
  • Identified seven variants of unknown significance in 11 patients (16.9%).
  • All pathogenic variants were found in the High-Probability Group, indicating an 18.2% prevalence of hereditary cSVD in this group.
  • Higher occurrence of VUSs in High-Probability Group (22.7%) compared to Low-Probability Group (4.6%).

Abstract

Background: The predictive performance of pre-screening phenotype-based algorithms in selecting patients with cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD), one of the main causes of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke and dementia, more likely to harbor clinically relevant genetic variants (CRGVs) has to date been poorly defined, making it a clinical challenge to decide which patients to screen for hereditary cSVD (hcSVD). Methods: We designed a high-throughput gene panel to identify variants in 27 candidate genes associated with cSVD and screened patients selected by a specific phenotype-based algorithm at one comprehensive stroke center from 2020 to 2023. We categorized participants into two sub-groups defined by pre-screening likelihood of hcSVD (hcSVD; High-Probability Group, HPG vs. Low-Probability Group, LPG) and compared the results of molecular analysis. Results: Among 65 probands, we detected four (6.1%) pathogenic CRGVs and seven (10.7%) variants of unknown significance (VUSs) in 11 (16.9%) patients. Pathogenic CRGVs were exclusively detected in the HPG (4/22 probands), corresponding to an 18.2% prevalence of hcSVD in this group. Of the seven VUSs, five (22.7%) were detected in the HPG vs. two (4.6%) in the LPG. Conclusions: The pragmatic algorithm we are proposing has the potential to help clinicians in identifying patients who are more likely to harbor monogenic disease.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ferraro et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6971be50642b1836717e300bhttps://doi.org/10.3390/genes17010098
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper