Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes

James T. Mascarello, Arthur R. Brothman, Keri Davison, Gordon W. Dewald, Marille Herrman, Danette McCandless, Jonathan P. Park, Diane L. Persons, Kathleen W. Rao, Nancy R. Schneider, Gail Vance, Linda D. Cooley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. - To assess laboratory performance, use, and limitations in the joint College of American Pathologists and American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for laboratories performing cytogenetic tests based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Data Sources. - Eight proficiency surveys dealing with FISH detection of microdeletions or microduplications, aneuploidy in interphase cells, gene amplification, and neoplasm-specific translocations. Participating laboratories used their own DNA probes (commercial or home-brew), hybridization methods, and analytic criteria to answer clinical questions about cases represented by slides included in the survey materials. They also described their test results according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) and answered supplementary questions relating to their experience with the subject test systems. Data Extraction. - In addition to evaluating diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated survey use, laboratory experience, variation in methodologic approach, and the practicality of using ISCN nomenclature for describing test results. Synthesis and Conclusions. - With the exception of one challenge, at least 80% of the participants reached the correct diagnostic conclusion. In the sole exception, there was still a consensus of 91.7% of participants with the same (albeit erroneous) diagnostic conclusion. The overall outstanding performance of participating laboratories clearly shows the reliability of current FISH methods. Despite the fact that a large number of laboratories reported little or no experience with the specific test systems, the overwhelming majority performed very well. This result shows that the program's strategy of targeting classes of abnormalities (vs a single abnormality associated with a specific disease) did not put at a disadvantage participants who did not routinely perform all of the potential tests in the class. The extraordinary variation in ISCN descriptions submitted by participants showed that the existing system for human cytogenetic nomenclature is not suitable for facile communication of FISH test results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1458-1462
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume126
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 2002

Fingerprint

Laboratory Proficiency Testing
DNA Probes
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Terminology
Cytogenetics
Chromosomes
Gene Amplification
Information Storage and Retrieval
Interphase
Aneuploidy
Consensus
Joints
Communication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Mascarello, J. T., Brothman, A. R., Davison, K., Dewald, G. W., Herrman, M., McCandless, D., ... Cooley, L. D. (2002). Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 126(12), 1458-1462.

Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes. / Mascarello, James T.; Brothman, Arthur R.; Davison, Keri; Dewald, Gordon W.; Herrman, Marille; McCandless, Danette; Park, Jonathan P.; Persons, Diane L.; Rao, Kathleen W.; Schneider, Nancy R.; Vance, Gail; Cooley, Linda D.

In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 126, No. 12, 12.2002, p. 1458-1462.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mascarello, JT, Brothman, AR, Davison, K, Dewald, GW, Herrman, M, McCandless, D, Park, JP, Persons, DL, Rao, KW, Schneider, NR, Vance, G & Cooley, LD 2002, 'Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes', Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 126, no. 12, pp. 1458-1462.
Mascarello JT, Brothman AR, Davison K, Dewald GW, Herrman M, McCandless D et al. Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2002 Dec;126(12):1458-1462.
Mascarello, James T. ; Brothman, Arthur R. ; Davison, Keri ; Dewald, Gordon W. ; Herrman, Marille ; McCandless, Danette ; Park, Jonathan P. ; Persons, Diane L. ; Rao, Kathleen W. ; Schneider, Nancy R. ; Vance, Gail ; Cooley, Linda D. / Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes. In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2002 ; Vol. 126, No. 12. pp. 1458-1462.
@article{03d8459e29fd4b42b47c9fbc5cd9bcec,
title = "Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes",
abstract = "Objective. - To assess laboratory performance, use, and limitations in the joint College of American Pathologists and American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for laboratories performing cytogenetic tests based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Data Sources. - Eight proficiency surveys dealing with FISH detection of microdeletions or microduplications, aneuploidy in interphase cells, gene amplification, and neoplasm-specific translocations. Participating laboratories used their own DNA probes (commercial or home-brew), hybridization methods, and analytic criteria to answer clinical questions about cases represented by slides included in the survey materials. They also described their test results according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) and answered supplementary questions relating to their experience with the subject test systems. Data Extraction. - In addition to evaluating diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated survey use, laboratory experience, variation in methodologic approach, and the practicality of using ISCN nomenclature for describing test results. Synthesis and Conclusions. - With the exception of one challenge, at least 80{\%} of the participants reached the correct diagnostic conclusion. In the sole exception, there was still a consensus of 91.7{\%} of participants with the same (albeit erroneous) diagnostic conclusion. The overall outstanding performance of participating laboratories clearly shows the reliability of current FISH methods. Despite the fact that a large number of laboratories reported little or no experience with the specific test systems, the overwhelming majority performed very well. This result shows that the program's strategy of targeting classes of abnormalities (vs a single abnormality associated with a specific disease) did not put at a disadvantage participants who did not routinely perform all of the potential tests in the class. The extraordinary variation in ISCN descriptions submitted by participants showed that the existing system for human cytogenetic nomenclature is not suitable for facile communication of FISH test results.",
author = "Mascarello, {James T.} and Brothman, {Arthur R.} and Keri Davison and Dewald, {Gordon W.} and Marille Herrman and Danette McCandless and Park, {Jonathan P.} and Persons, {Diane L.} and Rao, {Kathleen W.} and Schneider, {Nancy R.} and Gail Vance and Cooley, {Linda D.}",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "126",
pages = "1458--1462",
journal = "Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0003-9985",
publisher = "College of American Pathologists",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes

AU - Mascarello, James T.

AU - Brothman, Arthur R.

AU - Davison, Keri

AU - Dewald, Gordon W.

AU - Herrman, Marille

AU - McCandless, Danette

AU - Park, Jonathan P.

AU - Persons, Diane L.

AU - Rao, Kathleen W.

AU - Schneider, Nancy R.

AU - Vance, Gail

AU - Cooley, Linda D.

PY - 2002/12

Y1 - 2002/12

N2 - Objective. - To assess laboratory performance, use, and limitations in the joint College of American Pathologists and American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for laboratories performing cytogenetic tests based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Data Sources. - Eight proficiency surveys dealing with FISH detection of microdeletions or microduplications, aneuploidy in interphase cells, gene amplification, and neoplasm-specific translocations. Participating laboratories used their own DNA probes (commercial or home-brew), hybridization methods, and analytic criteria to answer clinical questions about cases represented by slides included in the survey materials. They also described their test results according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) and answered supplementary questions relating to their experience with the subject test systems. Data Extraction. - In addition to evaluating diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated survey use, laboratory experience, variation in methodologic approach, and the practicality of using ISCN nomenclature for describing test results. Synthesis and Conclusions. - With the exception of one challenge, at least 80% of the participants reached the correct diagnostic conclusion. In the sole exception, there was still a consensus of 91.7% of participants with the same (albeit erroneous) diagnostic conclusion. The overall outstanding performance of participating laboratories clearly shows the reliability of current FISH methods. Despite the fact that a large number of laboratories reported little or no experience with the specific test systems, the overwhelming majority performed very well. This result shows that the program's strategy of targeting classes of abnormalities (vs a single abnormality associated with a specific disease) did not put at a disadvantage participants who did not routinely perform all of the potential tests in the class. The extraordinary variation in ISCN descriptions submitted by participants showed that the existing system for human cytogenetic nomenclature is not suitable for facile communication of FISH test results.

AB - Objective. - To assess laboratory performance, use, and limitations in the joint College of American Pathologists and American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for laboratories performing cytogenetic tests based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Data Sources. - Eight proficiency surveys dealing with FISH detection of microdeletions or microduplications, aneuploidy in interphase cells, gene amplification, and neoplasm-specific translocations. Participating laboratories used their own DNA probes (commercial or home-brew), hybridization methods, and analytic criteria to answer clinical questions about cases represented by slides included in the survey materials. They also described their test results according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) and answered supplementary questions relating to their experience with the subject test systems. Data Extraction. - In addition to evaluating diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated survey use, laboratory experience, variation in methodologic approach, and the practicality of using ISCN nomenclature for describing test results. Synthesis and Conclusions. - With the exception of one challenge, at least 80% of the participants reached the correct diagnostic conclusion. In the sole exception, there was still a consensus of 91.7% of participants with the same (albeit erroneous) diagnostic conclusion. The overall outstanding performance of participating laboratories clearly shows the reliability of current FISH methods. Despite the fact that a large number of laboratories reported little or no experience with the specific test systems, the overwhelming majority performed very well. This result shows that the program's strategy of targeting classes of abnormalities (vs a single abnormality associated with a specific disease) did not put at a disadvantage participants who did not routinely perform all of the potential tests in the class. The extraordinary variation in ISCN descriptions submitted by participants showed that the existing system for human cytogenetic nomenclature is not suitable for facile communication of FISH test results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037003394&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037003394&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 126

SP - 1458

EP - 1462

JO - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0003-9985

IS - 12

ER -