A five-year experience with fragile X testing

Setting laboratory standards of practice and a cost-effective protocol

T. Marini, S. Pflueger, A. Jackson, S. Naber, S. Karpells, Rizwan C. Naeem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

During the years 1990-1994, our center tested 652 patients, with a broad range of referral indications, for fragile X syndrome using either cytogenetic analysis alone (Protocol 1) or, more recently, a combination of DNA analysis and routine karyotyping (Protocol 2). The overall positive rate for fragile X was 3.1% with an incidence of other chromosomal abnormalities (OCAs) of 3.2%. Breakdown of cases using each testing protocol along with percent positives is: Fragile X Positives Cases Definitive Equivocal OCA Protocol 1:322 (49,4%) 6 (1.9%) 7 (2.2%) 8 (2.5%) Protocol 2:330 (50.6%) 7 (2.1%) 0 13 (3.9%). Use of Protocol 2 yielded only definitive fragile X results, while more than half of the 'positives' using Protocol 1 were equivocal. Historically this has been problematic for both the laboratory and physician since interpretation is often dependent on an equally equivocal clinical picture. Protocol 2 eliminates these diagnostic dilemmas without compromising detection of other chromosomal abnormalities, the incidence of which appears to be unaffected by testing method used. The overall incidence of OCA of 3.2% underscores the value of routine karyotyping in this referral group and likely reflects the phenotypic variability of fragile X and its clinical overlap with other chromosomal abnormalities. We believe that a fragile X testing protocol combining routine karyotyping with definitive molecular technology represents the most cost-effective diagnostic approach to this clinically challenging patient population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)161-166
Number of pages6
JournalDiagnostic Molecular Pathology
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Chromosome Aberrations
Karyotyping
Costs and Cost Analysis
Incidence
Referral and Consultation
Fragile X Syndrome
Cytogenetic Analysis
Technology
Physicians
DNA
Population

Keywords

  • Fragile X
  • Protocol
  • Routine karyotyping

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

A five-year experience with fragile X testing : Setting laboratory standards of practice and a cost-effective protocol. / Marini, T.; Pflueger, S.; Jackson, A.; Naber, S.; Karpells, S.; Naeem, Rizwan C.

In: Diagnostic Molecular Pathology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 06.1997, p. 161-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dfa574e25e754c319df2ecac32e476ae,
title = "A five-year experience with fragile X testing: Setting laboratory standards of practice and a cost-effective protocol",
abstract = "During the years 1990-1994, our center tested 652 patients, with a broad range of referral indications, for fragile X syndrome using either cytogenetic analysis alone (Protocol 1) or, more recently, a combination of DNA analysis and routine karyotyping (Protocol 2). The overall positive rate for fragile X was 3.1{\%} with an incidence of other chromosomal abnormalities (OCAs) of 3.2{\%}. Breakdown of cases using each testing protocol along with percent positives is: Fragile X Positives Cases Definitive Equivocal OCA Protocol 1:322 (49,4{\%}) 6 (1.9{\%}) 7 (2.2{\%}) 8 (2.5{\%}) Protocol 2:330 (50.6{\%}) 7 (2.1{\%}) 0 13 (3.9{\%}). Use of Protocol 2 yielded only definitive fragile X results, while more than half of the 'positives' using Protocol 1 were equivocal. Historically this has been problematic for both the laboratory and physician since interpretation is often dependent on an equally equivocal clinical picture. Protocol 2 eliminates these diagnostic dilemmas without compromising detection of other chromosomal abnormalities, the incidence of which appears to be unaffected by testing method used. The overall incidence of OCA of 3.2{\%} underscores the value of routine karyotyping in this referral group and likely reflects the phenotypic variability of fragile X and its clinical overlap with other chromosomal abnormalities. We believe that a fragile X testing protocol combining routine karyotyping with definitive molecular technology represents the most cost-effective diagnostic approach to this clinically challenging patient population.",
keywords = "Fragile X, Protocol, Routine karyotyping",
author = "T. Marini and S. Pflueger and A. Jackson and S. Naber and S. Karpells and Naeem, {Rizwan C.}",
year = "1997",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/00019606-199706000-00006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "161--166",
journal = "Diagnostic Molecular Pathology",
issn = "1052-9551",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A five-year experience with fragile X testing

T2 - Setting laboratory standards of practice and a cost-effective protocol

AU - Marini, T.

AU - Pflueger, S.

AU - Jackson, A.

AU - Naber, S.

AU - Karpells, S.

AU - Naeem, Rizwan C.

PY - 1997/6

Y1 - 1997/6

N2 - During the years 1990-1994, our center tested 652 patients, with a broad range of referral indications, for fragile X syndrome using either cytogenetic analysis alone (Protocol 1) or, more recently, a combination of DNA analysis and routine karyotyping (Protocol 2). The overall positive rate for fragile X was 3.1% with an incidence of other chromosomal abnormalities (OCAs) of 3.2%. Breakdown of cases using each testing protocol along with percent positives is: Fragile X Positives Cases Definitive Equivocal OCA Protocol 1:322 (49,4%) 6 (1.9%) 7 (2.2%) 8 (2.5%) Protocol 2:330 (50.6%) 7 (2.1%) 0 13 (3.9%). Use of Protocol 2 yielded only definitive fragile X results, while more than half of the 'positives' using Protocol 1 were equivocal. Historically this has been problematic for both the laboratory and physician since interpretation is often dependent on an equally equivocal clinical picture. Protocol 2 eliminates these diagnostic dilemmas without compromising detection of other chromosomal abnormalities, the incidence of which appears to be unaffected by testing method used. The overall incidence of OCA of 3.2% underscores the value of routine karyotyping in this referral group and likely reflects the phenotypic variability of fragile X and its clinical overlap with other chromosomal abnormalities. We believe that a fragile X testing protocol combining routine karyotyping with definitive molecular technology represents the most cost-effective diagnostic approach to this clinically challenging patient population.

AB - During the years 1990-1994, our center tested 652 patients, with a broad range of referral indications, for fragile X syndrome using either cytogenetic analysis alone (Protocol 1) or, more recently, a combination of DNA analysis and routine karyotyping (Protocol 2). The overall positive rate for fragile X was 3.1% with an incidence of other chromosomal abnormalities (OCAs) of 3.2%. Breakdown of cases using each testing protocol along with percent positives is: Fragile X Positives Cases Definitive Equivocal OCA Protocol 1:322 (49,4%) 6 (1.9%) 7 (2.2%) 8 (2.5%) Protocol 2:330 (50.6%) 7 (2.1%) 0 13 (3.9%). Use of Protocol 2 yielded only definitive fragile X results, while more than half of the 'positives' using Protocol 1 were equivocal. Historically this has been problematic for both the laboratory and physician since interpretation is often dependent on an equally equivocal clinical picture. Protocol 2 eliminates these diagnostic dilemmas without compromising detection of other chromosomal abnormalities, the incidence of which appears to be unaffected by testing method used. The overall incidence of OCA of 3.2% underscores the value of routine karyotyping in this referral group and likely reflects the phenotypic variability of fragile X and its clinical overlap with other chromosomal abnormalities. We believe that a fragile X testing protocol combining routine karyotyping with definitive molecular technology represents the most cost-effective diagnostic approach to this clinically challenging patient population.

KW - Fragile X

KW - Protocol

KW - Routine karyotyping

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030880622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030880622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00019606-199706000-00006

DO - 10.1097/00019606-199706000-00006

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 161

EP - 166

JO - Diagnostic Molecular Pathology

JF - Diagnostic Molecular Pathology

SN - 1052-9551

IS - 3

ER -