4.6 Article

College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 765-769

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821d3165

关键词

cytogenomic microarray; proficiency testing; CAP; ACMG; CGH; SNP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of administering a newly established proficiency test offered through the College of American Pathologists and the American College of Medical Genetics for genomic copy number assessment by microarray analysis, and to determine the reproducibility and concordance among laboratory results from this test. Methods: Surveys were designed through the Cytogenetic Resource Committee of the two colleges to assess the ability of testing laboratories to process DNA samples provided and interpret results. Supplemental questions were asked with each Survey to determine laboratory practice trends. Results: Twelve DNA specimens, representing 2 pilot and 10 Survey challenges, were distributed to as many as 74 different laboratories, yielding 493 individual responses. The mean consensus for matching result interpretations was 95.7%. Responses to supplemental questions indicate that the number of laboratories offering this testing is increasing, methods for analysis and evaluation are becoming standardized, and array platforms used are increasing in probe density. Conclusion: The College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for copy number assessment by cytogenomic microarray is a successful and efficient mechanism for assessing interlaboratory reproducibility. This will provide laboratories the opportunity to evaluate their performance and assure overall accuracy of patient results. The high level of concordance in laboratory responses across all testing platforms by multiple facilities highlights the robustness of this technology. Genet Med 2011:13(9):765-769.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据