Elisabeth Dequeker

A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests

The validation and verification of laboratory methods and procedures before their use in clinical testing is essential for providing a safe and useful service to clinicians and patients. This paper outlines the principles of validation and verification in the context of clinical human molecular genetic testing. We describe implementation processes, types of tests and their key validation components, and suggest some relevant statistical approaches that can be used by individual laboratories to ensure that tests are conducted to defined standards.

Quality control in molecular genetic testing

DNA-based testing for genetic diseases has developed from nothing into a principal part of laboratory medicine over the past 15 years. In the rush to bring these powerful new technologies into medical use, issues of quality have not always been given sufficient attention. Efforts are now being made to assess the quality of the output of genetic testing laboratories, and the results show that there is room for improvement.

External Quality Assessment for KRAS Testing Is Needed: Setup of a European Program and Report of the First Joined Regional Quality Assessment Rounds

The use of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeting antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer has been restricted to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors by the European Medicines Agency since 2008, based on data showing a lack of efficacy and potential harm in patients with mutant KRAS tumors. In an effort to ensure optimal, uniform, and reliable community-based KRAS testing throughout Europe, a KRAS external quality assessment (EQA) scheme was set up. The first large assessment round included 59 laboratories from eight different European countries. For each country, one regional scheme organizer prepared and distributed the samples for the participants of their own country. The samples included unstained sections of 10 invasive colorectal carcinomas with known KRAS mutation status. The samples were centrally validated by one of two reference laboratories. The laboratories were allowed to use their own preferred method for histological evaluation, DNA isolation, and mutation analysis. In this study, we analyze the setup of the KRAS scheme. We analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the regional scheme organization by analyzing the outcome of genotyping results, analysis of tumor percentage, and written reports. We conclude that only 70% of laboratories correctly identified the KRAS mutational status in all samples. Both the false-positive and false-negative results observed negatively affect patient care. Reports of the KRAS test results often lacked essential information. We aim to further expand this program to more laboratories to provide a robust estimate of the quality of KRAS testing in Europe, and provide the basis for remedial measures and harmonization.

Genetic Testing and Quality Control in Diagnostic Laboratories

To evaluate the quality of genetic testing for cystic fibrosis, 136, 145 and 159 laboratories participated in a European study in 1996, 1997 and 1998, respectively. We sent six purified DNA samples carrying the more common CFTR mutations with the request to test them using routine protocols. A panel of experts reviewed the results together with the raw data.

Towards quality assurance and harmonization of genetic testing services in the European Union

Although quality assurance schemes have been proven effective in preventing genetic testing errors, a recent survey of services in the EU reveals that laboratory participation in these schemes is fragmented and incomplete.

Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients

Molecular testing is becoming an important part of the diagnosis of any patient with cancer. The challenge to laboratories is to meet this need, using reliable methods and processes to ensure that patients receive a timely and accurate report on which their treatment will be based. The aim of this paper is to provide minimum requirements for the management of molecular pathology laboratories. This general guidance should be augmented by the specific guidance available for different tumour types and tests. Preanalytical considerations are important, and careful consideration of the way in which specimens are obtained and reach the laboratory is necessary. Sample receipt and handling follow standard operating procedures, but some alterations may be necessary if molecular testing is to be performed, for instance to control tissue fixation. DNA and RNA extraction can be standardised and should be checked for quality and quantity of output on a regular basis. The choice of analytical method(s) depends on clinical requirements, desired turnaround time, and expertise available. Internal quality control, regular internal audit of the whole testing process, laboratory accreditation, and continual participation in external quality assessment schemes are prerequisites for delivery of a reliable service. A molecular pathology report should accurately convey the information the clinician needs to treat the patient with sufficient information to allow for correct interpretation of the result. Molecular pathology is developing rapidly, and further detailed evidence-based recommendations are required for many of the topics covered here.

Recommendations for quality improvement in genetic testing for cystic fibrosis European Concerted Action on Cystic Fibrosis

These recommendations for quality improvement of cystic fibrosis genetic diagnostic testing provide general guidelines for the molecular genetic testing of cystic fibrosis in patients/individuals. General strategies for testing as well as guidelines for laboratory procedures, internal and external quality assurance, and for reporting the results, including the requirements of minimal services in mutation testing, the nomenclature for describing mutations, procedures to control false-positive amplification reactions and to validate tests, and guidelines to implement a quality system in a molecular diagnostic laboratory are reviewed.

Developing a sustainable process to provide quality control materials for genetic testing

Purpose: To provide a summary of the outcomes of two working conferences organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop recommendations for practical, sustainable mechanisms to make quality control (QC) materials available to the genetic testing community.Methods: Participants were selected to include experts in genetic testing and molecular diagnostics from professional organizations, government agencies, industry, laboratories, academic institutions, cell repositories, and proficiency testing (PT)/external Quality Assessment (EQA) programs. Current efforts to develop QC materials for genetic tests were reviewed; key issues and areas of need were identified; and workgroups were formed to address each area of need and to formulate recommendations and next steps.Results: Recommendations were developed toward establishing a sustainable process to improve the availability of appropriate QC materials for genetic testing, with an emphasis on molecular genetic testing as an initial step.Conclusions: Improving the availability of appropriate QC materials is of critical importance for assuring the quality of genetic testing, enhancing performance evaluation and PT/EQA programs, and facilitating new test development. To meet the needs of the rapidly expanding capacity of genetic testing in clinical and public health settings, a comprehensive, coordinated program should be developed. A Genetic Testing Quality Control Materials Program has therefore been established by CDC in March 2005 to serve these needs.

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

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.

Guideline on the requirements of external quality assessment programs in molecular pathology

Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.