ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the extent and the sources of variation in ISCN nomenclature used by participants in CAP/ACMG surveys dealing with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). METHODS: Over 1600 nomenclature strings from 15 challenges in seven surveys were evaluated for the contributions of diagnostic errors, syntax errors, methodological differences, and technical factors not foreseen by ISCN 1995. RESULTS: Although diagnostic errors were uncommon, syntax errors were numerous, approaching 50% of the responses for several challenges. Their frequency varied with the complexity of the nomenclature required to describe a test condition. Variation attributable to probe selection and band designation correlated with the number of probes available for addressing the diagnostic issue at hand. In the most dramatic example of this effect, a survey simulating diagnosis of trisomy 21 in uncultured amniocytes, there were 66 participants (of 99) who used the same general form for their nomenclature, but only 8 of the 66 had exactly the same nomenclature string. Participants used proprietary names, created their own nomenclature, or ignored the true complexity of probe systems when trying to describe conditions not foreseen by ISCN 1995. CONCLUSION: The use of current ISCN FISH nomenclature resulted in survey participants describing unique biological conditions in a multitude of different ways. In addition to making the nomenclature unsuitable for proficiency test purposes, this heterogeneity makes it impractical for clinical test reporting and for cytogenetic database management. Because methodological information contributes a large amount of variability, adds complexity, and increases opportunities for syntax errors, a system that excludes such information would be more effective.
Subject(s)
Cytogenetic Analysis/standards , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence , Laboratories/standards , Terminology as Topic , Data Collection , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence/standards , Quality ControlABSTRACT
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.
