Literature DB >> 9781062

Evaluation of CFTR gene mutation testing methods in 136 diagnostic laboratories: report of a large European external quality assessment.

E Dequeker1, J J Cassiman.   

Abstract

Within the framework of the European Concerted Action on Cystic Fibrosis (Biomed-2, BMH4-CT96-0462) a quality assessment was set up for 135 European and one Australian laboratory. Six DNA samples were sent to the various laboratories. These samples carried the following CFTR genotypes: dF508/N1303K; dI507/wild; dF508/G551D; dF508/621 + 1 GtoT; R553X/wild and 1717-1 GtoA/wild. Each laboratory was asked to process the samples as they routinely do, whether they checked for all mutations or not. More than 75% of the laboratories screened for at least six of these mutations. Heteroduplex analysis was the most frequently used primary testing method (47%), in many instances followed by restriction enzyme digestion. Only a minority of the laboratories made use of a commercial CFTR mutation detection kit. On average, 91% of the laboratories correctly typed both alleles of a given DNA sample. However, 35% of the laboratories incorrectly typed one or more alleles from a total of 12 alleles included in the trial. One laboratory even failed to identify four of the different alleles correctly. The genotyping error frequency tended to be lower in laboratories which perform more than 200 CFTR mutation analyses per year. The results of this quality control trial suggest that there are many laboratories (35%) which have a percentage of errors unacceptable in a routine testing setting. The development of a consensus testing strategy for routine diagnostic laboratories and centralised mutation analysis facilities for rare or country-specific mutations in a limited number of expert centres, in combination with regular training sessions and quality assessments, should further improve genotyping.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9781062     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  5 in total

1.  Quality assurance practices in Europe: a survey of molecular genetic testing laboratories.

Authors:  Sarah Berwouts; Katrina Fanning; Michael A Morris; David E Barton; Elisabeth Dequeker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  Endorsing good quality assurance practices in molecular pathology: risks and recommendations for diagnostic laboratories and external quality assessment providers.

Authors:  Lien Tembuyser; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 3.  Current landscape and new paradigms of proficiency testing and external quality assessment for molecular genetics.

Authors:  Lisa V Kalman; Ira M Lubin; Shannon Barker; Desiree du Sart; Rob Elles; Wayne W Grody; Mario Pazzagli; Sue Richards; Iris Schrijver; Barbara Zehnbauer
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 4.  Tumor BRCA testing in ovarian cancer and EQA scheme: our experience of a critical evaluation.

Authors:  Elisa De Paolis; Paola Concolino; Maria Elisabetta Onori; Concetta Santonocito; Claudia Marchetti; Anna Fagotti; Giovanni Scambia; Andrea Urbani; Angelo Minucci
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 2.316

5.  Molecular analysis using DHPLC of cystic fibrosis: increase of the mutation detection rate among the affected population in Central Italy.

Authors:  Maria Rosaria D'Apice; Stefano Gambardella; Mario Bengala; Silvia Russo; Anna Maria Nardone; Vincenzina Lucidi; Federica Sangiuolo; Giuseppe Novelli
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2004-04-14       Impact factor: 2.103

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.