Laura J Tafe1, Michael B Datto2, Glenn E Palomaki3, Felicitas L Lacbawan4. 1. 1] Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA [2] The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 3. 1] Department of Pathology, Women & Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA [2] Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 4. Department of Molecular Pathology, Robert J Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze laboratory performance on proficiency testing surveys offered jointly by the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics biannually for the three common Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. METHODS: Survey responses were analyzed for accuracy of genotype determination and the associated clinical interpretation. Data on an individual laboratory's participation over time, number of samples tested, turnaround time, and test methodology were also reviewed. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2012, 23 US laboratories and 39 international laboratories participated. There were six genotyping errors, with a corresponding analytical sensitivity of 99.0% (479/484 challenges; 95% confidence interval: 97.6-99.7%) and an analytic specificity of 99.9% (870/871; 95% confidence interval: 99.4-99.9%). Among the 1,325 clinical interpretations, 92.5% (1,226/1,325; 95% confidence interval: 91.0-93.9%) matched the intended response. Most of the 99 discrepancies-81% (80/99)-incorrectly interpreted the risk for a negative test result as having a lifetime risk of breast cancer "that is the same as that in the general population" instead of "that cannot be determined without BRCA mutation testing of the affected relative." CONCLUSION: Clinical laboratories demonstrated excellent analytical sensitivity and specificity. The clinical interpretation requires additional education, focusing on the clinical interpretation of negative test results for these three mutations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze laboratory performance on proficiency testing surveys offered jointly by the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics biannually for the three common Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. METHODS: Survey responses were analyzed for accuracy of genotype determination and the associated clinical interpretation. Data on an individual laboratory's participation over time, number of samples tested, turnaround time, and test methodology were also reviewed. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2012, 23 US laboratories and 39 international laboratories participated. There were six genotyping errors, with a corresponding analytical sensitivity of 99.0% (479/484 challenges; 95% confidence interval: 97.6-99.7%) and an analytic specificity of 99.9% (870/871; 95% confidence interval: 99.4-99.9%). Among the 1,325 clinical interpretations, 92.5% (1,226/1,325; 95% confidence interval: 91.0-93.9%) matched the intended response. Most of the 99 discrepancies-81% (80/99)-incorrectly interpreted the risk for a negative test result as having a lifetime risk of breast cancer "that is the same as that in the general population" instead of "that cannot be determined without BRCA mutation testing of the affected relative." CONCLUSION: Clinical laboratories demonstrated excellent analytical sensitivity and specificity. The clinical interpretation requires additional education, focusing on the clinical interpretation of negative test results for these three mutations.
Authors: Catherine M Phelan; Elaine Kwan; Elaine Jack; Song Li; Cindy Morgan; Jennifer Aubé; Danielle Hanna; Steven A Narod Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Brian S Finkelman; Wendy S Rubinstein; Sue Friedman; Tara M Friebel; Shera Dubitsky; Niecee Singer Schonberger; Rochelle Shoretz; Christian F Singer; Joanne L Blum; Nadine Tung; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Henry T Lynch; Carrie Snyder; Judy E Garber; Joellen Schildkraut; Mary B Daly; Claudine Isaacs; Gabrielle Pichert; Susan L Neuhausen; Fergus J Couch; Laura van't Veer; Rosalind Eeles; Elizabeth Bancroft; D Gareth Evans; Patricia A Ganz; Gail E Tomlinson; Steven A Narod; Ellen Matloff; Susan Domchek; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Sue Richards; Glenn E Palomaki; Felicitas L Lacbawan; Elaine Lyon; Gerald L Feldman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Devin Oglesbee; Tina M Cowan; Marzia Pasquali; Timothy C Wood; Karen E Weck; Thomas Long; Glenn E Palomaki Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Gábor Jaksa; Lajos Pintér; Farkas Sükösd; Zoltán Gyuris; Adrienn Hajdu; Erika Határvölgyi; Katalin Priskin; Lajos Haracska Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-09-20