In general, idic(15) occurs de novo but the parents must be karyotyped to make sure it is not inherited, mostly because this will affect the course of genetic counseling given to the family. If the abnormality is found prenatally and one of the parents harbour the marker, the child has a chance of not carrying the mutation. Further tests should however be done to prove the marker has not been rearranged while being inherited. This information is also necessary for counseling of future pregnancies. Each family is unique and should therefore be handled individually.

Genetic screening is also typically done postnatally, including PCR typing of microsatellite DNA and STS markers as well as comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies using DNA microarrays.

In some cases PCR and sequencing of the entire "SOX9" gene is used to diagnose CMD.

Many different translocation breakpoints and related chromosomal aberrations in patients with CMD have been identified.

"In utero" sonographic diagnosis is possible when characteristic features such as bilateral bowed femurs and tibia, clubbed feet, prominent curvature of the neck, a bell-shaped chest, pelvic dilation, and/or an undersized jaw are apparent

Radiographic techniques are generally used only postnatally and also rely on prototypical physical characteristics.

The extra chromosome in people with idic(15) can be easily detected through chromosome analysis (karyotyping). Additional tests are usually required. FISH (Fluorescent in situ hybridization) is used to confirm the diagnosis by distinguishing idic(15) from other supernumerary marker chromosomes. Array CGH can be used to determine the gene content and magnitude of copy number variation so that the clinical picture can be foreseen.

Interstitial duplications of chromosome 15 can be more difficult to detect on a routine chromosome analysis but are clearly identifiable using a 15q FISH study. Families should always discuss the results of chromosome and FISH studies with a genetic counselor or other genetics professionals to ensure accurate interpretation.

Techniques used to diagnose this disorder are fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and microarrays. FISH uses fluorescent dyes to visualize sections under a microscope, but some changes are too small to see. Microarray comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) shows changes in small amounts DNA on chromosomes.

Therapy can help developmental delays, as well as physiotherapy for the low muscle tone. Exercise and healthy eating can reduce weight gain. Treatments are available for seizures, eczema, asthma, infections, and certain bodily ailments.

Diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome can be difficult due to the number of potential symptoms and the variation in phenotypes between individuals. It is suspected in patients with one or more signs of the deletion. In these cases a diagnosis of 22q11.2DS is confirmed by observation of a deletion of part of the long arm (q) of chromosome 22, region 1, band 1, sub-band 2. Genetic analysis is normally performed using fluorescence "in situ" hybridization (FISH), which is able to detect microdeletions that standard karyotyping (e.g. G-banding) miss. Newer methods of analysis include Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay (MLPA) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), both of which can detect atypical deletions in 22q11.2 that are not detected by FISH. qPCR analysis is also quicker than FISH, which can have a turn around of 3 to 14 days.

A 2008 study of a new high-definition MLPA probe developed to detect copy number variation at 37 points on chromosome 22q found it to be as reliable as FISH in detecting normal 22q11.2 deletions. It was also able to detect smaller atypical deletions that are easily missed using FISH. These factors, along with the lower expense and easier testing mean that this MLPA probe could replace FISH in clinical testing.

Genetic testing using BACs-on-Beads has been successful in detecting deletions consistent with 22q11.2DS during prenatal testing. Array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) uses a large number of probes embossed in a chip to screen the entire genome for deletions or duplications. It can be used in post and pre-natal diagnosis of 22q11.2.

Fewer than 5% of individuals with clinical symptoms of the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome have normal routine cytogenetic studies and negative FISH testing. In these cases, atypical deletions are the cause. Some cases of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome have defects in other chromosomes, notably a deletion in chromosome region 10p14.

A clinical diagnosis of SCS can be verified by testing the TWIST1 gene (only gene in which mutations are known to cause SCS) for mutations using DNA analysis, such as sequence analysis, deletion/duplication analysis, and cytogenetics/ FISH analysis. Sequence analysis of exon 1 (TWIST1 coding region) provides a good method for detecting the frequency of mutations in the TWIST1 gene. These mutations include nonsense, missense, splice site mutation, and intragenic deletions/insertions. Deletion/duplication analysis identifies mutations in the TWIST1 gene that are not readily detected by sequence analysis. Common methods include PCR, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and chromosomal microarray (CMA). Cytogenetic/FISH analysis attaches fluorescently labels DNA markers to a denatured chromosome and is then examined under fluorescent lighting, which reveals mutations caused by translocations or inversions involving 7p21. Occasionally, individuals with SCS have a chromosome translocation, inversion, or ring chromosome 7 involving 7p21 resulting in atypical findings, such as, increased developmental delay. Individuals with SCS, typically have normal brain functioning and rarely have mental impairments. For this reason, if an individual has both SCS and mental retardation, then they should have their TWIST1 gene screened more carefully because this is not a normal trait of SCS. Cytogenetic testing and direct gene testing can also be used to study gene/chromosome defects. Cytogenetic testing is the study of chromosomes to detect gains or losses of chromosomes or chromosome segments using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and/or comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). Direct gene testing uses blood, hair, skin, amniotic fluid, or other tissues in order to find genetic disorders. Direct gene testing can determine whether an individual has SCS by testing the individual's blood for mutations in the TWIST1 gene.

Up until recently, experts frequently disagreed on whether a patient had SCS, Crouzon syndrome, isolated craniosynostosis, or some other disease because the symptoms are so closely related, they literally had no way of differentiating between all of them. However, we now have direct gene testing, which allows for a more definitive diagnosis because it allows them to be differentiated from each other based on which gene is mutated in each condition. The following is a list of conditions commonly confused/misdiagnosed for SCS, some of their symptoms, and which mutated gene each contains:

22q11.2 deletion syndrome was estimated to affect between one in 2000 and one in 4000 live births. This estimate is based on major birth defects and may be an underestimate, because some individuals with the deletion have few symptoms and may not have been formally diagnosed. It is one of the most common causes of mental retardation due to a genetic deletion syndrome.

The prevalence of 22q11.2DS has been expected to rise because of multiple reasons: (1) Thanks to surgical and medical advances, an increasing number of people are surviving heart defects associated with the syndrome. These individuals are in turn having children. The chances of a 22q11.2DS patient having an affected child is 50% for each pregnancy; (2) Parents who have affected children, but who were unaware of their own genetic conditions, are now being diagnosed as genetic testing become available; (3) Molecular genetics techniques such as FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) have limitations and have not been able to detect all 22q11.2 deletions. Newer technologies have been able to detect these atypical deletions.

Recently, the syndrome has been estimated to affect up to one in 2000 live births. Testing for 22q11.2DS in over 9500 pregnancies revealed a prevalence rate of 1/992.

Prenatal Diagnosis:

- Aymé, "et al." (1989) reported prenatal diagnosis of Fryns syndrome by sonography between 24 and 27 weeks.

- Manouvrier-Hanu et al. (1996) described the prenatal diagnosis of Fryns syndrome by ultrasonographic detection of diaphragmatic hernia and cystic hygroma. The diagnosis was confirmed after termination of the pregnancy. The fetus also had 2 erupted incisors; natal teeth had not been mentioned in other cases of Fryns syndrome.

Differential Diagnosis:

- McPherson et al. (1993) noted the phenotypic overlap between Fryns syndrome and the Pallister–Killian syndrome (601803), which is a dysmorphic syndrome with tissue-specific mosaicism of tetrasomy 12p.

- Veldman et al. (2002) discussed the differentiation between Fryns syndrome and Pallister–Killian syndrome, noting that differentiation is important to genetic counseling because Fryns syndrome is an autosomal recessive disorder and Pallister–Killian syndrome is usually a sporadic chromosomal aberration. However, discrimination may be difficult due to the phenotypic similarity. In fact, in some infants with 'coarse face,' acral hypoplasia, and internal anomalies, the initial diagnosis of Fryns syndrome had to be changed because mosaicism of isochromosome 12p was detected in fibroblast cultures or kidney tissue. Although congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a common finding in both syndromes, bilateral congenital diaphragmatic hernia had been reported only in patients with Fryns syndrome until the report of the patient with Pallister–Killian syndrome by Veldman et al. (2002).

- Slavotinek (2004) reviewed the phenotypes of 52 reported cases of Fryns syndrome and reevaluated the diagnostic guidelines. She concluded that congenital diaphragmatic hernia and distal limb hypoplasia are strongly suggestive of Fryns syndrome, with other diagnostically relevant findings including pulmonary hypoplasia, craniofacial dysmorphism, polyhydramnios, and orofacial clefting. Slavotinek (2004) stated that other distinctive anomalies not mentioned in previous guidelines include ventricular dilatation or hydrocephalus, agenesis of the corpus callosum, abnormalities of the aorta, dilatation of the ureters, proximal thumbs, and broad clavicles.

In France, Aymé, "et al." (1989) estimated the prevalence of Fryns syndrome to be 0.7 per 10,000 births based on the diagnosis of 6 cases in a series of 112,276 consecutive births (live births and perinatal deaths).

The 5-year disease-free survival for age >5 years is 50-60%. Another report found a similar 5-year survival at about 65% with 51% progression-free survival. The 10-year disease-free survival is 40-50%. Younger ages showed lower 5 and 10-year survival rates. A 2006 study that observed 133 patients found 31 (23.3%) had a recurrence of the disease within a five-year period.

Use of telomerase inhibitors such as Imetelstat seem to have very low toxicity compared to other chemotherapy. The only known side effect of most telomerase inhibitors is dose-induced neutropenia. Neuropsychological deficits can result from resection, chemotherapy, and radiation, as well as endocrinopathies. Additionally, an increase in gastrointestinal complications has been observed in survivors of pediatric cancers.

While it is generally considered incurable, CLL progresses slowly in most cases. Many people with CLL lead normal and active lives for many years—in some cases for decades. Because of its slow onset, early-stage CLL is, in general, not treated since it is believed that early CLL intervention does not improve survival time or quality of life. Instead, the condition is monitored over time to detect any change in the disease pattern.

The decision to start CLL treatment is taken when the patient's clinical symptoms or blood counts indicate that the disease has progressed to a point where it may affect the patient's quality of life.

Clinical "staging systems" such as the Rai four-stage system and the Binet classification can help to determine when and how to treat the patient.

Determining when to start treatment and by what means is often difficult; no survival advantage is seen in treating the disease very early. The National Cancer Institute Working Group has issued guidelines for treatment, with specific markers that should be met before it is initiated.

Staging, determining the extent of the disease, is done with the Rai staging system or the Binet classification (see details) and is based primarily on the presence of a low platelet or red cell count. Early-stage disease does not need to be treated. CLL and SLL are considered the same underlying disease, just with different appearances.

Rai staging system

- "Stage 0": characterized by absolute lymphocytosis (>15,000/mm) without adenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, or thrombocytopenia

- "Stage I": characterized by absolute lymphocytosis with lymphadenopathy without hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, or thrombocytopenia

- "Stage II:" characterized by absolute lymphocytosis with either hepatomegaly or splenomegaly with or without lymphadenopathy

- "Stage III": characterized by absolute lymphocytosis and anemia (hemoglobin <11 g/dL) with or without lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, or splenomegaly

- "Stage IV": characterized by absolute lymphocytosis and thrombocytopenia (<100,000/mm) with or without lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, or anemia

Binet classification

- "Clinical stage A": characterized by no anemia or thrombocytopenia and fewer than three areas of lymphoid involvement (Rai stages 0, I, and II)

- "Clinical stage B": characterized by no anemia or thrombocytopenia with three or more areas of lymphoid involvement (Rai stages I and II)

- "Clinical stage C": characterized by anemia and/or thrombocytopenia regardless of the number of areas of lymphoid enlargement (Rai stages III and IV)