scholarly journals Biomarkers in functional movement disorders: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (12) ◽  
pp. 1261-1269
Author(s):  
Birgitte Liang Chen Thomsen ◽  
Tiago Teodoro ◽  
Mark J Edwards

Functional movement disorders (FMD) are proposed to reflect a specific problem with voluntary control of movement, despite normal intent to move and an intact neural capacity for movement. In many cases, a positive diagnosis of FMD can be established on clinical grounds. However, the diagnosis remains challenging in certain scenarios, and there is a need for predictors of treatment response and long-term prognosis.In this context, we performed a systematic review of biomarkers in FMD. Eighty-six studies met our predefined criteria and were included.We found fairly reliable electroencephalography and electromyography-based diagnostic biomarkers for functional myoclonus and tremor. Promising biomarkers have also been described for functional paresis, gait and balance disorders. In contrast, there is still a lack of diagnostic biomarkers of functional dystonia and tics, where clinical diagnosis is often also more challenging. Importantly, many promising findings focus on pathophysiology and reflect group-level comparisons, but cannot differentiate on an individual basis. Some biomarkers also require access to time-consuming and resource-consuming techniques such as functional MRI.In conclusion, there are important gaps in diagnostic biomarkers in FMD in the areas of most clinical uncertainty. There is also is a lack of treatment response and prognostic biomarkers to aid in the selection of patients who would benefit from rehabilitation and other forms of treatment.

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (10) ◽  
pp. 1120-1121
Author(s):  
Yasmine EM Dreissen ◽  
Franka Lambert ◽  
Joke M Dijk ◽  
Johannes HTM Koelman ◽  
Marina AJ Tijssen

2014 ◽  
Vol 338 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 174-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Pareés ◽  
Maja Kojovic ◽  
Carolina Pires ◽  
Ignacio Rubio-Agusti ◽  
Tabish A. Saifee ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 89 ◽  
pp. 139-143
Author(s):  
Dharsha Navaratnam ◽  
Karl Harm ◽  
Alison Fenton ◽  
Joanne Bullock-Saxton ◽  
Alison Griffin ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Toren ◽  
Lih-Ming Wong ◽  
Narhari Timilshina ◽  
Shabbir Alibhai ◽  
John Trachtenberg ◽  
...  

Introduction: The use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is controversial. Some consider it an unreliable marker and others as sufficient evidence to exclude patients from AS. We analyzed our cohort of AS patients with a PSA over 10 ng/mL.Methods: We included patients who had clinical T1c–T2a Gleason ≤6 disease, and ≤3 positive cores with ≤50% core involvement at diagnostic biopsy and ≥2 total biopsies. Patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) those with baseline PSA >10 ng/mL, (2) those with a PSA rise >10 ng/mL during follow-up; and (3) those with a PSA <10 ng/mL throughout AS. Adverse histology was defined as biopsy parameters exceeding the entry criteria limits. We further compared this cohort to a concurrent institutional cohort with equal biopsy parameters treated with immediate radical prostatectomy.Results: Our cohort included 698 patients with a median follow-up of 46.2 months. In total, 82 patients had a baseline PSA >10 ng/mL and 157 had a PSA rise >10 ng/mL during surveillance. No difference in adverse histology incidence was detected between groups (p = 0.3). Patients with a PSA greater than 10 were older and had higher prostate volumes. Hazard ratios for groups with a PSA >10 were protective against adverse histology. Larger prostate volume and minimal core involvement appear as factors related to this successful selection of patients to be treated with AS.Conclusion: These results suggest that a strict cut-off PSA value for all AS patients is unwarranted and may result in overtreatment. Though lacking long-term data and validation, AS appears safe in select patients with a PSA >10 ng/mL and low volume Gleason 6 disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document