SCN1A Genetic Test for Dravet Syndrome (Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy and its Clinical Subtypes) for use in the Diagnosis, Prognosis, Treatment and Management of Dravet Syndrome.

UNLABELLED: Classic Dravet syndrome is also termed severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy (SMEI). There are subtle phenotypic variants of Dravet which may have all the features of the syndrome except one, such as without myoclonic seizures, onset in the second year or without generalized spike and wave on EEG. These have been termed borderline variants of SMEI. Rather than ascribing multiple different names to marginally different phenotypes, the term Dravet syndrome is now preferred to describe the group of severe infantile onset epilepsies (OMIM #607208, #182389, #604403) associated with mutations in SCN1A (OMIM *182389). SCN1A-related seizure disorders can be inherited in an autosomal dominant manner but most are due to de novo mutations. SCN1A testing can be done through bi-directional DNA sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for: 1) individuals with electroclinical phenotype of Dravet Syndrome or clinical sub-types - several seizure types in one individual with onset in infancy, refractory to medication and with generalised spike and wave on EEG, or 2) infants less than 1 year old with 2 or more prolonged hemiclonic febrile seizures in early infancy. DISCLAIMER: This summary is based on a UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) approved Gene Dossier application.

EMQN/CMGS best practice guidelines for the molecular genetic testing of Huntington disease.

Huntington disease (HD) is caused by the expansion of an unstable polymorphic trinucleotide (CAG)n repeat in exon 1 of the HTT gene, which translates into an extended polyglutamine tract in the protein. Laboratory diagnosis of HD involves estimation of the number of CAG repeats. Molecular genetic testing for HD is offered in a wide range of laboratories both within and outside the European community. In order to measure the quality and raise the standard of molecular genetic testing in these laboratories, the European Molecular Genetics Quality Network has organized a yearly external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for molecular genetic testing of HD for over 10 years. EQA compares a laboratory's output with a fixed standard both for genotyping and reporting of the results to the referring physicians. In general, the standard of genotyping is very high but the clarity of interpretation and reporting of the test result varies more widely. This emphasizes the need for best practice guidelines for this disorder. We have therefore developed these best practice guidelines for genetic testing for HD to assist in testing and reporting of results. The analytical methods and the potential pitfalls of molecular genetic testing are highlighted and the implications of the different test outcomes for the consultand and his or her family members are discussed.

Monitoring standards for molecular genetic testing in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Ireland.

Molecular genetic techniques have entered many areas of clinical practice. Public expectations from this technology are understandably high. To maintain confidence in this technology, laboratories must implement the highest standards of quality assurance (QA). External quality assessment (EQA) is recognized as an essential component of QA. The United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UKNEQAS) for Molecular Genetics, first set up in 1991, is currently the longest provider of EQA to molecular genetic testing laboratories in the UK, The Netherlands, and Ireland. Errors in the scheme are sporadic events. However, evidence from this and other EQA schemes suggests that a residual error rate persists, which should be taken into account in clinical practice. This EQA scheme has evolved from the respective scientific bodies of the constituent countries and retains a strong emphasis on collective peer review. It is essential that the steps taken to ensure quality in this rapidly expanding field are clear and transparent to participants and public alike. We describe the procedures developed and the governance imposed to monitor and improve analytical and reporting standards in participant laboratories and we compare our experiences with those of equivalent EQA services in the United States.