Thyroid cytopathology: updates and molecular testing.

The utility of fine needle aspiration (FNA) is well described in the context of evaluating thyroid lesions. Among the various international systems of classification of thyroid cytology, the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) has also provided a sound framework to standardize the reporting of FNA cytology results. New molecular evidence and clinical studies demonstrated the need for revision of the nomenclature resulting in introduction of new categories, such as the noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasms with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP). Indeterminate thyroid cytology results pose a challenge for further management and the continued development of molecular markers may aid in the management of indeterminate thyroid lesions.

Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Genetic Health Risk Assessment System. Final order.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is classifying the genetic health risk assessment system into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the genetic health risk assessment system's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.

Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification; Class II Devices; Autosomal Recessive Carrier Screening Gene Mutation Detection System. Final order.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is publishing an order to exempt autosomal recessive carrier screening gene mutation detection systems from the premarket notification requirements, subject to certain limitations. This exemption from 510(k), subject to certain limitations, is immediately in effect for autosomal recessive carrier screening gene mutation detection systems. This exemption will decrease regulatory burdens on the medical device industry and will eliminate private costs and expenditures required to comply with certain Federal regulations. FDA is also amending the codified language for the autosomal recessive carrier screening gene mutation detection system devices classification regulation to reflect this final determination.

Survey of medical genetic services in Italy: year 2011.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to collect information about 2011 genetic activities in Italy, with the purpose of providing guidance to the national health systems in order to improve genetic services. METHODS: A web-based survey was carried out to achieve the information. RESULTS: Data were collected from 268 macrostructures hosting 517 services and employing 3246 persons. About 295,000 cytogenetic, 35,000 immunogenetic and 263,000 molecular genetic analyses of 902 genes were recorded. Seventy-four percent of the services were accredited with institutional bodies and 57 % were also certified according to ISO 9001 standard. Twenty percent of cytogenetic laboratories had participated in an European External Quality Assessment (EQA) while 44 % participated in a national EQA. Only 28 % of the molecular laboratories had participated in a national Cystic Fibrosis EQA. The percentage of diagnoses confirmed by genetic tests varied among disorders, ranging from 52 % for coeliac disease to 4 % for fragile X syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for reorganizing the Italian genetic services network, improving EQA participation and developing national plans for implementing next generation technologies. Concerted effort has to be addressed in the education of the professionals prescribing tests to improve appropriateness and to inform patients, who now have exposure to direct-to-consumer multifactorial genetic testing where clinical utility is unproven.

Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Autosomal Recessive Carrier Screening Gene Mutation Detection System. Final order.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified an autosomal recessive carrier screening gene mutation detection system into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to this device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the autosomal recessive carrier screening gene mutation detection system classification. The Agency has classified the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

Recommendations regarding the genetic and immunological study of reproductive dysfunction. / Recomendaciones para el estudio genético e inmunológico en la disfunción reproductiva.

In this article several members of diverse scientific associations and reproduction experts from Spain have updated different genetic and immunological procedure recommendations in couples affected by reproductive dysfunction with the goal of providing a set of useful guidelines for the clinic. The laboratory test has been considered as highly recommendable for making clinical decisions when the result of the diagnostic test is relevant, moderately recommendable when the results are of limited evidence because they are inconsistent, and low when the benefit of the test is uncertain. It is expected that these recommendations will provide some useful guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of couples presenting reproductive dysfunction.

Medical devices; clinical chemistry and clinical toxicology devices; drug metabolizing enzyme genotyping system. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying drug metabolizing enzyme (DME) genotyping test systems into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to the device is the guidance document entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Drug Metabolizing Enzyme Genotyping System." The agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a notice of availability of a guidance document that is the special control for this device.

Categorizing genetic tests to identify their ethical, legal, and social implications.

Practice standards in medical genetics provide an implicit guide to the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetic tests. The common use of nondirective counseling reflects the principle that many testing decisions should be determined by personal values. Yet geneticists make test recommendations in some circumstances, e.g., RET mutation testing for MEN2 and newborn screening for phenylketonuria (PKU). Conversely, many geneticists recommend against testing for Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) alleles to predict Alzheimer disease (AD) risk. Taken together, these examples suggest that genetic tests can be categorized by a joint consideration of clinical validity and availability of effective treatment for persons who test positive. For genetic tests with high clinical validity/no treatment (e.g., presymptomatic testing for Huntington disease), the predominant concern is adequate nondirective counseling to ensure an informed, autonomous decision. By contrast, the predominant concern for tests with high clinical validity/effective treatment (e.g., PKU) is assuring access to care for eligible persons. For tests with limited clinical validity/no treatment (e.g., ApoE), recommending against test use can be justified on the principle of avoiding harm. For a fourth category, tests with limited clinical validity/effective treatment (e.g., HFE mutation testing for hereditary hemochromatosis), net benefit is the issue: the balance between potential benefits of treatment and potential harms of genetic labeling must be weighed. Where uncertainty exists concerning both clinical validity and effectiveness of treatment, as in the case of BRCA 1/2 mutation testing, the value of testing may vary according to different testing contexts. This approach to test categorization allows a rapid determination of the predominant ELSI concerns for different kinds of genetic tests and identifies the data most urgently needed for test evaluation.

Medical devices; hematology and pathology devices; classification of the Factor V Leiden DNA mutation detection systems devices. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the Factor V Leiden deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mutation detections systems device into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to the device is the guidance document entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems." The agency is taking this action in response to a petition submitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), and the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The agency is classifying this device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a notice of availability of a guidance document that is the special control for this device.

Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Many sequence variants in predisposition genes are of uncertain clinical significance, and classification of these variants into high- or low-risk categories is an important problem in clinical genetics. Classification of such variants can be performed by direct epidemiological observations, including cosegregation with disease in families and degree of family history of the disease, or by indirect measures, including amino acid conservation, severity of amino acid change, and evidence from functional assays. In this study, we have developed an approach to the synthesis of such evidence in a multifactorial likelihood-ratio model. We applied this model to the analysis of three unclassified variants in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2. The evidence strongly suggests that two variants (C1787S in BRCA1 and D2723H in BRCA2) are deleterious, three (R841W in BRCA1 and Y42C and P655R in BRCA2) are neutral, and one (R1699Q in BRCA1) remains of uncertain significance. These results provide a demonstration of the utility of the model.

Public health impact of genetic tests at the end of the 20th century.

PURPOSE: To evaluate genetics tests available for clinical, research, and public health purposes in terms of their public health impact as measured by the number of people who could potentially be tested. METHODS: Genetic tests for the 751 inherited diseases or conditions listed in the GeneTests database as of November 2000, were classified on the basis of their use for population-based testing and the prevalence of the disease or condition being tested. The GeneTests database divides the tests into two groups: those offered for clinical use and those available for research only. RESULTS: Of the 423 clinical tests, 51 had potentially greater impact on public health because of their use in statewide newborn screening programs, other population screening programs, or testing for common diseases with a prevalence over 1 in 2,000 people. Among the 328 tests performed for research purposes only, 18 met the criteria for potentially greater public health impact. CONCLUSIONS: Our classification scheme indicated that fewer than 10% of the genetic tests listed in the GeneTests database at the end of 2000 are highly relevant to public health. The majority of genetic tests are used in diagnosis and/or genetic counseling for rare, single-gene disorders in a limited number of people. However, as more tests are being considered for newborn screening, and associations between genes and common diseases are being discovered, the impact of genetic testing on public health is likely to increase.

Genetic testing coverage and reimbursement: a provider's dilemma.

The rapid growth of new molecular genetic tests stimulated by the diagnostic potential of DNA/RNA analyses has resulted in the capability of molecular genetic assay technology outpacing the American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and Medicare reimbursement. The AMA CPT Editorial Panel is poised to change the way we report genetic testing, and this change may have the potential to stimulate a governmental review of how Medicare is paying for diagnostic genetic testing. Genetic assays are costly, and those in laboratory management need to be aware of potential changes that may influence the ability of their laboratory to provide access to genetic testing services for their physician clientele. The commercialization of genetic testing has resulted in a proliferation of commercial laboratories and university medical center laboratories, CLIA-certified to perform high complexity testing, offering some level of genetic testing. The genetic tests are offered as home brew (in-house developed) assays, most of which are using analyte-specific reagents. Because these are home brew assays, there is no standardization in how the industry tests for specific mutations. As these genetic assays are billed using the generic molecular diagnostic codes, 83890 through 83912, from the Pathology and Laboratory Chemistry subsection of the CPT, payers are not able to identify the specific mutations being tested and make payment determinations based on the mutations as they relate to the diagnosis code. This article discusses the history of molecular diagnostic coding and related reimbursement, current coverage issues, and the genetic coding proposal under consideration by the AMA CPT Editorial Panel.

Prenatal screening and genetics.

Although the term 'genetic screening' has been used for decades, this paper discusses how, in its most precise meaning, genetic screening has not yet been widely introduced. 'Prenatal screening' is often confused with 'genetic screening'. As we show, these terms have different meanings, and we examine definitions of the relevant concepts in order to illustrate this point. The concepts are i) prenatal, ii) genetic screening, iii) screening, scanning and testing, iv) maternal and foetal tests, v) test techniques and vi) genetic conditions. So far, prenatal screening has little connection with precisely defined genetics. There are benefits but also disadvantages in overstating current links between them in the term genetic screening. Policy making and professional and public understandings about screening could be clarified if the distinct meanings of prenatal screening and genetic screening were more precisely observed.