scholarly journals Characteristics of Clinical Molecular-Genetic Testing Laboratories in the United States

1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1288-1290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang T Hofgärtner ◽  
Jonathan F Tait
2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. McGovern ◽  
Rob Elles ◽  
Elettra Ronchi ◽  
Joe Boone ◽  
Ira M. Lubin

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Shook ◽  
Deidra Haygood ◽  
Charles T. Quinn

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of related yet genetically complex hemoglobinopathies. Universal newborn screening (NBS) for SCD is performed in the United States and many other nations. Classical, protein-based laboratory methods are often adequate for the diagnosis of SCD but have specific limitations in the context of NBS. A particular challenge is the differentiation of sickle cell anemia (SCA) from the benign condition, compound heterozygosity for HbS and gene-deletion hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin (HbS/HPFH). We describe a sequential cohort of 44 newborns identified over 4.5 years who had molecular genetic testing incorporated into NBS for presumed SCA (an “FS” pattern). The final diagnosis was something other than SCA in six newborns (12%). Three (7%) had HbS/HPFH. All had a final, correct diagnosis at the time of their first scheduled clinic visit in our center (median 8 weeks of age). None received initial counseling for an incorrect diagnosis. In summary, genetic testing as a component of NBS for SCD is necessary to provide correct genetic counseling and education for all newborns' families at their first visit to a sickle cell center. Genetic testing also permits the use of early, pre-symptomatic hydroxyurea therapy by preventing infants with HbS/HPFH from receiving unnecessary therapy. We argue that genetic testing should be incorporated into contemporary NBS for SCD.


2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1118-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Berwouts ◽  
Katrina Fanning ◽  
Michael A Morris ◽  
David E Barton ◽  
Elisabeth Dequeker

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. McGovern ◽  
Rob Elles ◽  
Isabella Beretta ◽  
Martin J. Somerville ◽  
Gerald Hoefler ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-76
Author(s):  
Margaret M. McGovern ◽  
Marta Benach ◽  
Sylvan Wallenstein ◽  
Joe Boone ◽  
Ira M. Lubin

Abstract Context.—It has been suggested that specific regulation of laboratories performing genetic testing may be needed to ensure standards and quality assurance, and to safeguard the rights of patients with regard to confidentiality and providing informed consent. Previously, a comprehensive analysis of current practices of molecular genetic testing laboratories was conducted, the results of which have assisted in the assessment of the need for regulation and its impact on access to testing. However, a study designed to determine clinical laboratory practices with regard to biochemical genetic testing has not been carried out. Objective.—To collect and analyze data regarding availability of clinical biochemical genetic testing, personnel standards, and laboratory quality assurance practices. Design.—A mail survey of biochemical genetic testing laboratory directors and assignment of a quality assurance score based on responses to genetic testing process items. Setting.—Hospital-based, independent, and research-based biochemical genetic testing laboratories in the United States. Participants.—Directors of biochemical genetic testing laboratories (n = 133; response rate 68.5%). Main Outcome Measure.—Laboratory process quality assurance score based on the standards defined by the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Practice Committee. Results.—Personnel qualifications varied, although all directors had doctoral degrees. The mean quality assurance score was 77% (range 28%–100%). Higher scores were associated with the following variables: test director having an MD degree versus PhD degree (P = .002), director board certification in biochemical genetics (P = .002), research and hospital laboratory versus independent laboratory setting (P < .001), and participation in a proficiency testing program (P = .03). Twelve percent of participants had a confidentiality policy, and 19% required informed consent before testing. Conclusion.—The finding that a number of laboratories had quality assurance scores that may reflect suboptimal laboratory practices, particularly with regard to reporting practices, suggests that personnel qualification and laboratory practice standards may be in need of improvement to ensure quality in clinical biochemical genetic testing laboratories, as well as the appropriate clinical use of the test results.


2021 ◽  
pp. 337-343
Author(s):  
Eugenie Mok ◽  
Ka Wai Kam ◽  
Anthony J. Aldave ◽  
Alvin L. Young

A 65-year-old man presented with bilateral, painless, progressive blurring of vision over 9 years. Slit-lamp examination revealed bilateral subepithelial corneal opacities in clusters located at the mid-periphery. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography, in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM), serum protein electrophoresis, and molecular genetic testing were performed to evaluate the cause of corneal opacities. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography revealed a band-like, hyperreflective lesion in the Bowman layer and anterior stroma of both corneas. IVCM revealed hyperreflective deposits in the epithelium, anterior stroma, and endothelium. Serum protein electrophoresis identified the presence of paraproteins (immunoglobulin kappa), and molecular genetic testing revealed absence of mutations in the transforming growth factor beta-induced gene (<i>TGFBI</i>) and collagen type XVII alpha 1 gene (<i>COL17A1</i>). The ocular diagnosis of paraproteinemic keratopathy eventually led to a systemic diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance by our hematologist/oncologist. Paraproteinemic keratopathy is a rare differential diagnosis in patients with bilateral corneal opacities and therefore may be misdiagnosed as corneal dystrophy or neglected as scars. In patients with bilateral corneal opacities of unknown cause, serological examination, adjunct anterior segment imaging, and molecular genetic testing play a role in establishing the diagnosis.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (22) ◽  
pp. 4485-4492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Y. Chen ◽  
Judy E. Garber ◽  
Suzanne Higham ◽  
Katherine A. Schneider ◽  
Katie B. Davis ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: BRCA1/2 genetic testing has been commercially available in the United States since 1996. Most published reports described BRCA1/2 testing as research studies at large academic centers, but less is known about testing in the community. This study evaluates the process and early outcomes of BRCA1/2 genetic testing as a clinical service in the community setting. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to women in the United States whose health care providers ordered BRCA1/2 genetic testing from Myriad Genetic Laboratories from August 1998 through July 2000. Women tested at 149 large academic centers were excluded. Main outcome measures were demographic characteristics, recall of and satisfaction with the genetic testing process, and likelihood of pursuing cancer prevention strategies. RESULTS: Among the 646 respondents, 414 (64%) had a personal history of cancer and 505 (78%) had at least one first-degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Most subjects (82%) recalled discussions of informed consent before testing (median time, 30 minutes). Genetic results were conveyed during an office visit (57%), by telephone (39%), or by mail (3%). More than 75% of respondents were “very satisfied with the counseling received.” Cancer-free subjects with a germline mutation were more likely to consider prevention strategies after receiving the genetic results. CONCLUSION: Virtually all respondents had a personal and/or family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Although pretest and posttest communications were not standardized, overall satisfaction with clinical breast cancer genetic testing was high. Additional follow-up will provide data on future cancer prevention practices and cancer incidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document