Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24946157›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2015

Molecular testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations: a report on the College of American Pathologists proficiency testing surveys.

Laura J Tafe, Michael B Datto, Glenn E Palomaki, Felicitas L Lacbawan, CAP/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Resource Committee

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The highest frequency ofReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CAP/ACMG proficiency testing for biochemical genetics laboratories: a summary of performance.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laura J Tafe1] Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA [2] The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Michael B DattoDepartment of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Glenn E Palomaki1] Department of Pathology, Women & Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA [2] Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Felicitas L LacbawanDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Robert J Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
CAP/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Resource Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe 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.

methodsSurvey 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.

resultsBetween 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."

conclusionClinical 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.

Indexed as

Founder EffectGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Genetic TestingMutationGenotypeHealth Care SurveysHumansJewsLaboratory Proficiency TestingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24946157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.