Genome-wide arrays in routine diagnostics of hematological malignancies.

Over the last three decades, cytogenetic analysis of malignancies has become an integral part of disease evaluation and prediction of prognosis or responsiveness to therapy. In most diagnostic laboratories, conventional karyotyping, in conjunction with targeted fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis, is routinely performed to detect recurrent aberrations with prognostic implications. However, the genetic complexity of cancer cells requires a sensitive genome-wide analysis, enabling the detection of small genomic changes in a mixed cell population, as well as of regions of homozygosity. The advent of comprehensive high-resolution genomic tools, such as molecular karyotyping using comparative genomic hybridization or single-nucleotide polymorphism microarrays, has overcome many of the limitations of traditional cytogenetic techniques and has been used to study complex genomic lesions in, for example, leukemia. The clinical impact of the genomic copy-number and copy-neutral alterations identified by microarray technologies is growing rapidly and genome-wide array analysis is evolving into a diagnostic tool, to better identify high-risk patients and predict patients' outcomes from their genomic profiles. Here, we review the added clinical value of an array-based genome-wide screen in leukemia, and discuss the technical challenges and an interpretation workflow in applying arrays in the acquired cytogenetic diagnostic setting.

Genome-wide arrays: quality criteria and platforms to be used in routine diagnostics.

Whole-genome analysis using genome-wide arrays, also called "genomic arrays," "microarrays," or "arrays," has become the first-tier diagnostic test for patients with developmental abnormalities and/or intellectual disabilities. In addition to constitutional anomalies, genomic arrays are also used to diagnose acquired disorders. Despite the rapid implementation of these technologies in diagnostic laboratories, external quality control schemes (such as CEQA, EMQN, UK NEQAS, and the USA QA scheme CAP) and interlaboratory comparisons show that there are huge differences in quality, interpretation, and reporting among laboratories. We offer guidance to laboratories to help assure the quality of array experiments and to standardize minimum detection resolution, and we also provide guidelines to standardize interpretation and reporting.

Chromosomes in the genomic age. Preserving cytogenomic competence of diagnostic genome laboratories.

Participation of clinical genetic laboratories in External Quality Assessment schemes (EQAs) is a powerful method to ascertain if any improvement or additional training is required in the diagnostic service. Here, we provide evidence from recent EQAs that the competence in recognizing and interpreting cytogenetic aberrations is variable and could impact patient management. We identify several trends that could affect cytogenomic competence. Firstly, as a result of the age distribution among clinical laboratory geneticists (CLGs) registered at the European Board of Medical Genetics, about 25-30% of those with experience in cytogenetics will retire during the next decade. At the same time, there are about twice as many molecular geneticists to cytogeneticists among the younger CLGs. Secondly, when surveying training programs for CLG, we observed that not all programs guarantee that candidates gather sufficient experience in clinical cytogenomics. Thirdly, we acknowledge that whole genome sequencing (WGS) has a great attraction to biomedical scientists that wish to enter a training program for CLG. This, with a larger number of positions available, makes a choice for specialization in molecular genetics logical. However, current WGS technology cannot provide a diagnosis in all cases. Understanding the etiology of chromosomal rearrangements is essential for appropriate follow-up and for ascertaining recurrence risks. We define the minimal knowledge a CLG should have about cytogenomics in a world dominated by WGS, and discuss how laboratory directors and boards of professional organizations in clinical genetics can uphold cytogenomic competence by providing adequate CLG training programs and attracting sufficient numbers of trainees.

HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) recommendations for the designation of gene fusions.

Gene fusions have been discussed in the scientific literature since they were first detected in cancer cells in the early 1980s. There is currently no standardized way to denote the genes involved in fusions, but in the majority of publications the gene symbols in question are listed either separated by a hyphen (-) or by a forward slash (/). Both types of designation suffer from important shortcomings. HGNC has worked with the scientific community to determine a new, instantly recognizable and unique separator-a double colon (::)-to be used in the description of fusion genes, and advocates its usage in all databases and articles describing gene fusions.

An Internet-based external quality assessment in cytogenetics that audits a laboratory's analytical and interpretative performance.

A novel approach to external quality assessment (EQA) using the Internet mimics the diagnostic situation so that multiple tests can be requested and EQA cases can be 'tailor made' to address a specific chromosome syndrome, disease, or clinical dilemma. The web-based EQA system was trialled on a large UK EQA scheme, UK NEQAS for Clinical Cytogenetics. It has also been used to implement a new Cytogenetics European Quality Assessment scheme, CEQA, set up with the intention of providing laboratories in countries without access to a local EQA scheme the opportunity of participation in EQA. Overall, Internet-based EQA allows for a varied EQA programme. Poor performance was detected in both CEQA and UK NEQAS constitutional EQA schemes and also in the UK NEQAS oncology EQA scheme. The Internet-based EQA overcomes submission delays due to international surface mail. There is also a reduction in administration and assessors' time compared to a retrospective EQA involving the submission of unique cases for EQA assessment, as participants analyse the same three Internet-based EQA cases simultaneously. Many EU27 (EU member states) laboratories still do not participate in their national EQA schemes, so until EQA participation becomes mandatory as a component of compulsory laboratory accreditation, the quality of laboratory diagnostic service is unpredictable.

Cytogenetic Nomenclature and Reporting.

A standardized nomenclature is critical for the accurate and consistent description of genomic changes as identified by karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization and microarray. The International System for Human Cytogenomic Nomenclature (ISCN) is the central reference for the description of karyotyping, FISH, and microarray results, and provides rules for describing cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic findings in laboratory reports. These laboratory reports are documents to the referring clinician, and should be clear, accurate and contain all information relevant for good interpretation of the cytogenetic findings. Here, we describe guidelines for cytogenetic nomenclature and laboratory reports for cytogenetic testing applied to tumor samples.