Schneider, Nancy R.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Objective. —To assemble and interpret karyotype data provided as part of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics Cytogenetics Proficiency Testing Program. Data Sources, Extraction, and Synthesis. —The Cytogenetics Resource Committee requested data on all cells analyzed in a 1994 whole-blood specimen challenge. In that study, 287 participating laboratories analyzed a total of 14297 cells derived from a sample drawn from an adult donor with Turner syndrome. This individual had previously been found to have mosaicism, including cell lines with X structural anomalies along with monosomy X, making this an excellent challenge for a multicenter cytogenetic survey. Results and Conclusions. —Analysis of the data from this extensive study revealed mosaicism of up to 10 different sex chromosome complements involving the X chromosome with and without a small ring X or a derivative X chromosome. In the routine cytogenetic analysis performed by the participating laboratories, cell lines observed, in decreasing order of prevalence, included 45,X (n = 8357 cells), 46,X,r(X) (n = 3597), 46,X,der( X )t( X ;X) (n = 2237), 46,XX (n = 93), 47,X,r(X),r(X) (n = 5), 47,X,der( X )t( X ;X),der( X )t( X ;X) (n = 3), 47,XX,r(X) (n = 2), and one observation each of 47,XX,der( X )t( X ;X), 47,X,der( X )t( X ;X),r(X), and 47,XXX. Our molecular cytogenetic data, as well as detailed analysis of G-banded chromosomes, suggest the nomenclature for these 2 abnormal X chromosomes as r(X)(p11.3q21.3) and der( X )t( X ;X)(p11.3;q21.3), and we discuss models for the concomitant formation of these 2 entities. Both the degree of analysis and the extensive mosaicism that was discovered in this study are exceptional, and similar reported cases as well as possible mechanisms for the observed X chromosome instability are reviewed.