The link between providers and patients: How laboratories can ensure quality results with genetic testing

Clinical Leadership and Management Review

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 351-357

  Quillin, John M ^a,b   Jackson Cook, Colleen ^c   Bodurtha, Joann ^c  

^a Department of Human Genetics Pediatrics and Obstetrics Gynecology ^*

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CONFIDENTIALITY; COOPERATION; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INFORMED CONSENT; LABORATORY; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ADULT; CONFIDENTIALITY; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFORMED CONSENT; LABORATORIES; NEONATAL SCREENING; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1542542677     PISSN: 15273954     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American College of Medical Genetics. Standards and Guidelines: Clinical Genetics Laboratories, the American College of Human Genetics Laboratory Practice Committee, 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: American College of Medical Genetics, 2002.
2. White MT, Callif-Daley F, Donnelly J. Genetic testing for disease susceptibility: social, ethical and legal issues for family physicians. Am Fam Physician, 1999;60:748-758.
3. Royal College of Pathologists Working Party on the Retention and Storage of Pathological Records and Archives. Consensus statement of recommended policies for uses of human tissue in research education and quality control. London: Royal College of Pathologists, 1999.
4. Fortina P, Surrey S, Kricka LJ. Molecular diagnostics: hurdles for clinical implementation. Trends Mol Med, 2002;8:264-266.
5. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Development of a classification methodology for genetic tests: conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Bethesda, MD: 2001.
6. Begg CB. On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2002; 94:1221-1226.
7. Petrucelli N, Lazebnik N, Huelsman KM, et al. Clinical interpretation and recommendations for patients with a variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a survey of genetic counseling practice. Genet Test, 2002;6:107-113.
8. Olopade OI, Fackenthal JD, Dunston G, et al. Breast cancer genetics in African Americans. Cancer, 2003;97(suppl 1):236-245.
9. American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Practice Committee Working Group. ACMG recommendations for interpretation of sequence variations. Genet Med, 2002;2:302-303.
10. Giardello FM, Brensinger JD, Petersen GM, et al. The use and interpretation of commercial APC gene testing for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. N Engl J Med, 1997;336:823-827.
11. Press NA, Yasui Y, Reynolds S, et al. Women's interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility may be based on unrealistic expectations. Am J Med Genet, 2001;99:99-110.
12. Gregg AR, Simpson JL. Genetic screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2002;29:329-340.
13. Kulczycki LL, Kostuch M, Bellanti JA. A clinical perspective of cystic fibrosis and new genetic findings: relationship of CFTR mutations to genotype-phenotype manifestations. Am J Med Genet, 2003;116A:262-267.
14. Concar D. Genetic test blunders risk needless abortions. New Scientist, April 30, 2003.
15. Agence France Presse. Test blunders over cystic fibrosis may lead to needless abortions. Europe Intelligence Wire, April 30, 2003.
16. BBC News. Gene test blunders abortion risk. April 30, 2003.
17. Harris M. Johns Hopkins Center calls for stricter controls for genetic testing. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions Office of Communications and Public Affairs (Press Release), April 4, 2003.
18. Schneider M. Introduction to Public Health 2000. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, 2000:185.
19. American College of Medical Genetics/American Society of Human Genetics Test and Technology Trasnfer Committee Group. Tandem mass spectrometry in newborn screening. Genet Med, 2000;2:267-269.
20. st Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
21. Motulsky AG, Andrews LB, Biesecker BB. Genetic testing policies must stress informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary participation. National Academies News, 1993.
22. Hall DM, Michel JM. Screening in infancy. Arch Dis Child, 1995;72:93-96.
23. Liebl B, Ratzel Nennstiel U, von Kries R, et al. Very high compliance in an expanded MS MS based newborn screening program despite written parental consent. Prev Med, 2002;34:127-131.
24. Wald NJ, Morris JK. Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: no evidence yet of any benefit. Br Med J, 1998;316:404-405.
25. Eng C. From bench to bedside. . .but when? Genome Res, 1997;7:669-672.
26. Edmonds LD, James LM. Temporal trends in the prevalence of congenital malformations at birth based on the Birth Defects Monitoring Program, United States, 1979-1987. MMWR, 1990;39:19-23.
27. Botto LD, Yang Q. 5,10-Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene variants and congenital anomalies: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol, 2000;151:862-877.
28. Lynch TM, Gutmann DH. Neurofibromatosis 1. Neurol Clin, 2002;20:841-865.
29. Finnell RH, Shaw GM, Lammer EJ, et al. Does prenatal screening for 5/10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) mutations in high-risk neural tube defect pregnancies make sense? Genet Test, 2002;6:47-52.
30. Van Rooij IA, Vermeij-Keers C, Kluijtmans LA, et al. Does the interaction between maternal folate intake and the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms affect the risk of cleft lip with or without cleft palate? Am J Epidemiol, 2003;137:583-591.
31. Hobbs CA, Cleves MA, Lauer RM, et al. Preferential transmission of the MTHFR 677 T allele to infants with Down syndrome: implications for a survival advantage. Am J Med Genet, 2002;113:9-14.
32. Ray JG, Shmorgun D, Chan WS. Common C677T polymorphism of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene and the risk of venous thromboembolism: meta-analysis of 31 studies. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb, 2002;132:51-58.
33. Heijmans BT, Boer JM, Suchiman HE, et al. A common variant of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene (1p36) is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Cancer Res, 2003;63:12491253.
34. Klimberg VS, Galandiuk S, Singletary ES, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology: statement on genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Ann Surg Oncol, 1999;6:507-509.
35. McGovern MM, Benach MO, Wallenstein S, et al. Quality assurance in molecular genetic testing laboratories. JAMA, 1999;281:835.
36. Fleisher LD, Cole LJ. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is here: what price privacy? Genet Med, 2001;3:286-289.
37. Beckendorf JL, Reutenauer JE, Hughes CA, et al. Patient's attitudes about autonomy and confidentiality in genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet, 1997;73:296-303.
38. Geer KP, Ropka ME, Cohn WF, et al. Factors influencing patients' decisions to decline cancer genetic counseling services. J Genet Counseling, 2001;10:25-40.
39. Wilkinson DS. Patient direct access to clinical laboratory testing: what are the critical issues? Ramifications, 2003;14:6-7.
40. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med, 2003;348:721-726.
41. Krousel-Wood M, Andersson HC, Rice J, et al. Physicians' perceived usefulness of and satisfaction with test reports for cystic fibrosis (F508) and factor V Leiden. Genet Med, 2003;5:166-171.