Tafe Laura J, Datto Michael B, Palomaki Glenn E, Lacbawan Felicitas L
1] Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA [2] The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Genet Med. 2015 Jan;17(1):58-62. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.77. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
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.
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.
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."
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.
本研究旨在分析由美国病理学家学会/美国医学遗传学与基因组学学会每两年联合开展的能力验证调查中,各实验室对BRCA1和BRCA2基因中三种常见的阿什肯纳兹犹太族奠基者突变的检测表现。
分析调查回复中基因型判定的准确性及相关临床解读。还审查了各实验室随时间的参与情况、检测样本数量、周转时间和检测方法的数据。
2003年至2012年间,23家美国实验室和39家国际实验室参与其中。出现了6次基因分型错误,相应的分析灵敏度为99.0%(479/484次挑战;95%置信区间:97.6-99.7%),分析特异性为99.9%(870/871;95%置信区间:99.4-99.9%)。在1325条临床解读中,92.5%(1226/1325;95%置信区间:91.0-93.9%)与预期回复相符。99条差异解读中,81%(80/99)将阴性检测结果的风险错误解读为乳腺癌终身风险“与普通人群相同”,而非“未经受影响亲属的BRCA突变检测无法确定”。
临床实验室展现出出色的分析灵敏度和特异性。临床解读需要更多培训,重点是这三种突变阴性检测结果的临床解读。