Morphea or localized scleroderma is a distinctive inflammatory disease that leads to sclerosis of the skin and subcutaneous tissues. It comprises a number of subtypes differentiated according to their clinical presentation and the structure of the skin and underlying tissues involved in the fibrotic process. However, classification is difficult because the boundaries between the different types of morphea are blurred and different entities frequently overlap. The main subtypes are plaque morphea, linear scleroderma, generalized morphea, and pansclerotic morphea. With certain exceptions, the disorder does not have serious systemic repercussions, but it can cause considerable morbidity. In the case of lesions affecting the head, neurological and ocular complications may occur. There is no really effective and universal treatment so it is important to make a correct assessment of the extent and severity of the disease before deciding on a treatment approach.

A clinical overlap exists between mosaic Neurofibromatosis Type 2 and sporadic Schwannomatosis conditions. In these cases a molecular analysis of tumors is recommended for a proper genetic diagnostics. This analysis is challenged by the fact that schwannomas in both conditions bear a somatic double inactivation of the NF2 gene. However, SMARCB1-associated schwannomas follow a four-hit, three-step model, in which both alleles of SMARCB1 and NF2 genes are inactivated in the tumor, with one of the steps being always the loss of a big part of chromosome 22 involving both loci. Here we report a 36-year-old woman who only presented multiple subcutaneous schwannomas on her right leg. To help discriminate between both possible diagnoses, an exhaustive molecular genetic and genomic analysis was performed on two schwannomas of the patient, consisting in cDNA and DNA sequencing, MLPA, microsatellite multiplex PCR and SNP-array analyses. The loss of a big part of chromosome 22 (22q12.1q13.33) was identified in both tumors. However, this loss involved the NF2 but not the SMARCB1 locus. SNP-array analysis revealed the presence of the same deletion breakpoint in both schwannomas, indicating that this alteration was actually the first NF2 inactivating hit. In addition, a distinct NF2 point mutation in each tumor was identified, representing independent second hits. In accordance with these results, no deletions or point mutations in the SMARCB1 gene were identified. None of the mutations were present in the blood. Two of the patient’s children inherited chromosome 22 deleted in schwannomas of the mother, but in its wild type form. These results conclusively confirm the segmental mosaic NF2 nature of the clinical phenotype presented.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant disorder caused by pathogenic variants in NF1. Recently, NF1 testing has been included as a clinical criterion for NF1 diagnosis. Additionally, preconception genetic counselling in patients with NF1 focuses on a 50% risk of transmitting the familial variant as the risk of having a sporadic NF1 is considered the same as the general population. Methods: 829 individuals, 583 NF1 sporadic cases and 246 patients with NF1 with documented family history, underwent genetic testing for NF1. Genotyping and segregation analysis of NF1 familial variants was determined by microsatellite analysis and NF1 sequencing. Results: The mutational analysis of NF1 in 154 families with two or more affected cases studied showed the co-occurrence of two different NF1 germline pathogenic variants in four families. The estimated mutation rate in those families was 3.89×10^–3, 20 times higher than the NF1 mutation rate (~2×10⁻⁴) (p=0.0008). Furthermore, the co-occurrence of two different NF1 germline pathogenic variants in these families was 1:39, 60 times the frequency of sporadic NF1 (1:2500) (p=0.003). In all cases, the de novo NF1 pathogenic variant was present in a descendant of an affected male. In two cases, variants were detected in the inherited paternal wild-type allele. Conclusions: Our results, together with previous cases reported, suggest that the offspring of male patients with NF1 could have an increased risk of experiencing de novo NF1 pathogenic variants. This observation, if confirmed in additional cohorts, could have relevant implications for NF1 genetic counselling, family planning and NF1 genetic testing.