PURPOSE: : The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in interpretation and reporting of copy number changes that are detected by array-based technology in the clinical laboratory. METHODS: : Thirteen different copy number changes, detected by array comparative genomic hybridization, that have not been associated with an abnormal phenotype in the literature were evaluated by directors from 11 different clinical laboratories to determine how they would interpret and report the findings. RESULTS: : For none of the thirteen copy number changes was there complete agreement in the interpretation of the clinical significance of the deletion or duplication. For some cases, the interpretations ranged from normal to abnormal. CONCLUSION: : There is a need for more specific guidelines for interpreting and reporting copy number changes detected by array-based technology to clearly and more consistently communicate the clinical significance of these findings to ordering providers.
PURPOSE: : The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in interpretation and reporting of copy number changes that are detected by array-based technology in the clinical laboratory. METHODS: : Thirteen different copy number changes, detected by array comparative genomic hybridization, that have not been associated with an abnormal phenotype in the literature were evaluated by directors from 11 different clinical laboratories to determine how they would interpret and report the findings. RESULTS: : For none of the thirteen copy number changes was there complete agreement in the interpretation of the clinical significance of the deletion or duplication. For some cases, the interpretations ranged from normal to abnormal. CONCLUSION: : There is a need for more specific guidelines for interpreting and reporting copy number changes detected by array-based technology to clearly and more consistently communicate the clinical significance of these findings to ordering providers.
Authors: Diana C Darcy; Eleanor T Lewis; Kelly E Ormond; David J Clark; Jodie A Trafton Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrea K Vaags; Anath C Lionel; Daisuke Sato; McKinsey Goodenberger; Quinn P Stein; Sarah Curran; Caroline Ogilvie; Joo Wook Ahn; Irene Drmic; Lili Senman; Christina Chrysler; Ann Thompson; Carolyn Russell; Aparna Prasad; Susan Walker; Dalila Pinto; Christian R Marshall; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Bridget A Fernandez; Eric Fombonne; Patrick F Bolton; David A Collier; Jennelle C Hodge; Wendy Roberts; Peter Szatmari; Stephen W Scherer Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Nicole de Leeuw; Trijnie Dijkhuizen; Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa; Nigel P Carter; Lars Feuk; Helen V Firth; Robert M Kuhn; David H Ledbetter; Christa Lese Martin; Conny M A van Ravenswaaij-Arts; Steven W Scherer; Soheil Shams; Steven Van Vooren; Rolf Sijmons; Morris Swertz; Ros Hastings Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Sebastian Köhler; Uwe Schoeneberg; Johanna Christina Czeschik; Sandra C Doelken; Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa; Jonas Ibn-Salem; Christopher J Mungall; Damian Smedley; Melissa A Haendel; Peter N Robinson Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 6.318