Elaine Lyon1, Iris Schrijver2, Karen E Weck3, Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez4, C Sue Richards5, Glenn E Palomaki6. 1. 1] Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [2] ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. 1] Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA [2] Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 3. 1] Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA [2] Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA. 5. Knight Diagnostic Laboratories, Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Women & Infants Hospital, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular testing for cystic fibrosis mutations is widespread and routine in reproductive decision making and diagnosis. Our objective was to assess the level of performance of laboratories for this test. METHODS: The College of American Pathologists administers external proficiency testing with multiple DNA samples distributed biannually. RESULTS are analyzed, reviewed, and graded by the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Committee. Assessment is based on genotype and associated clinical interpretation. RESULTS: Overall, 357 clinical laboratories participated in the proficiency testing survey between 2003 and 2013 (322 in the United States and 35 international). In 2013, US participants reported performing nearly 120,000 tests monthly. Analytical sensitivity and specificity of US laboratories were 98.8% (95% confidence interval: 98.4-99.1%) and 99.6% (95% confidence interval: 99.4-99.7%), respectively. Analytical sensitivity improved between 2003 and 2008 (from 97.9 to 99.3%; P = 0.007) and remained steady thereafter. Clinical interpretation matched the intended response for 98.8, 86.0, and 91.0% of challenges with no, one, or two mutations, respectively. International laboratories performed similarly. DISCUSSION: Laboratory testing for cystic fibrosis in the United States has improved since 2003, and these data demonstrate a high level of quality. Neither the number of samples tested nor test methodology affected performance.
BACKGROUND: Molecular testing for cystic fibrosis mutations is widespread and routine in reproductive decision making and diagnosis. Our objective was to assess the level of performance of laboratories for this test. METHODS: The College of American Pathologists administers external proficiency testing with multiple DNA samples distributed biannually. RESULTS are analyzed, reviewed, and graded by the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Committee. Assessment is based on genotype and associated clinical interpretation. RESULTS: Overall, 357 clinical laboratories participated in the proficiency testing survey between 2003 and 2013 (322 in the United States and 35 international). In 2013, US participants reported performing nearly 120,000 tests monthly. Analytical sensitivity and specificity of US laboratories were 98.8% (95% confidence interval: 98.4-99.1%) and 99.6% (95% confidence interval: 99.4-99.7%), respectively. Analytical sensitivity improved between 2003 and 2008 (from 97.9 to 99.3%; P = 0.007) and remained steady thereafter. Clinical interpretation matched the intended response for 98.8, 86.0, and 91.0% of challenges with no, one, or two mutations, respectively. International laboratories performed similarly. DISCUSSION: Laboratory testing for cystic fibrosis in the United States has improved since 2003, and these data demonstrate a high level of quality. Neither the number of samples tested nor test methodology affected performance.
Authors: Victoria M Pratt; Michele Caggana; Christina Bridges; Arlene M Buller; Lisa DiAntonio; W Edward Highsmith; Leonard M Holtegaard; Kasinathan Muralidharan; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Jack Tarleton; Lorraine Toji; Shannon D Barker; Lisa V Kalman Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: S Kiesewetter; M Macek; C Davis; S M Curristin; C S Chu; C Graham; A E Shrimpton; S M Cashman; L C Tsui; J Mickle Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Michael S Watson; Garry R Cutting; Robert J Desnick; Deborah A Driscoll; Katherine Klinger; Michael Mennuti; Glenn E Palomaki; Bradley W Popovich; Victoria M Pratt; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Charles M Strom; C Sue Richards; David R Witt; Wayne W Grody Journal: Genet Med Date: 2004 Sep-Oct 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: Ruth E Timme; Hugh Rand; Maria Sanchez Leon; Maria Hoffmann; Errol Strain; Marc Allard; Dwayne Roberson; Joseph D Baugher Journal: Microb Genom Date: 2018-06-15