It is often challenging for the clinician interested in cystic fibrosis (CF) to interpret molecular genetic results, and to integrate them in the diagnostic process. The limitations of genotyping technology, the choice of mutations to be tested, and the clinical context in which the test is administered can all influence how genetic information is interpreted. This paper describes the conclusions of a consensus conference to address the use and interpretation of CF mutation analysis in clinical settings. Although the diagnosis of CF is usually straightforward, care needs to be exercised in the use and interpretation of genetic tests: genotype information is not the final arbiter of a clinical diagnosis of CF or CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein related disorders. The diagnosis of these conditions is primarily based on the clinical presentation, and is supported by evaluation of CFTR function (sweat testing, nasal potential difference) and genetic analysis. None of these features are sufficient on their own to make a diagnosis of CF or CFTR-related disorders. Broad genotype/phenotype associations are useful in epidemiological studies, but CFTR genotype does not accurately predict individual outcome. The use of CFTR genotype for prediction of prognosis in people with CF at the time of their diagnosis is not recommended. The importance of communication between clinicians and medical genetic laboratories is emphasized. The results of testing and their implications should be reported in a manner understandable to the clinicians caring for CF patients.

Molecular testing is becoming an important part of the diagnosis of any patient with cancer. The challenge to laboratories is to meet this need, using reliable methods and processes to ensure that patients receive a timely and accurate report on which their treatment will be based. The aim of this paper is to provide minimum requirements for the management of molecular pathology laboratories. This general guidance should be augmented by the specific guidance available for different tumour types and tests. Preanalytical considerations are important, and careful consideration of the way in which specimens are obtained and reach the laboratory is necessary. Sample receipt and handling follow standard operating procedures, but some alterations may be necessary if molecular testing is to be performed, for instance to control tissue fixation. DNA and RNA extraction can be standardised and should be checked for quality and quantity of output on a regular basis. The choice of analytical method(s) depends on clinical requirements, desired turnaround time, and expertise available. Internal quality control, regular internal audit of the whole testing process, laboratory accreditation, and continual participation in external quality assessment schemes are prerequisites for delivery of a reliable service. A molecular pathology report should accurately convey the information the clinician needs to treat the patient with sufficient information to allow for correct interpretation of the result. Molecular pathology is developing rapidly, and further detailed evidence-based recommendations are required for many of the topics covered here.

The increasing number of laboratories offering molecular genetic analysis of the CFTR gene and the growing use of commercial kits strengthen the need for an update of previous best practice guidelines (published in 2000). The importance of organizing regional or national laboratory networks, to provide both primary and comprehensive CFTR mutation screening, is stressed. Current guidelines focus on strategies for dealing with increasingly complex situations of CFTR testing. Diagnostic flow charts now include testing in CFTR-related disorders and in fetal bowel anomalies. Emphasis is also placed on the need to consider ethnic or geographic origins of patients and individuals, on basic principles of risk calculation and on the importance of providing accurate laboratory reports. Finally, classification of CFTR mutations is reviewed, with regard to their relevance to pathogenicity and to genetic counselling.

The validation and verification of laboratory methods and procedures before their use in clinical testing is essential for providing a safe and useful service to clinicians and patients. This paper outlines the principles of validation and verification in the context of clinical human molecular genetic testing. We describe implementation processes, types of tests and their key validation components, and suggest some relevant statistical approaches that can be used by individual laboratories to ensure that tests are conducted to defined standards.

Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.

Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Identify the most frequent errors made in KRAS testing in this study and the possible consequences for a patient. Describe factors that could increase the chance of an error during KRAS testing. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at http://CME.TheOncologist.com The use of epidermal growth factor receptor–targeting antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer has been restricted to patients with wild‐type KRAS tumors by the European Medicines Agency since 2008, based on data showing a lack of efficacy and potential harm in patients with mutant KRAS tumors. In an effort to ensure optimal, uniform, and reliable community‐based KRAS testing throughout Europe, a KRAS external quality assessment (EQA) scheme was set up. The first large assessment round included 59 laboratories from eight different European countries. For each country, one regional scheme organizer prepared and distributed the samples for the participants of their own country. The samples included unstained sections of 10 invasive colorectal carcinomas with known KRAS mutation status. The samples were centrally validated by one of two reference laboratories. The laboratories were allowed to use their own preferred method for histological evaluation, DNA isolation, and mutation analysis. In this study, we analyze the setup of the KRAS scheme. We analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the regional scheme organization by analyzing the outcome of genotyping results, analysis of tumor percentage, and written reports. We conclude that only 70% of laboratories correctly identified the KRAS mutational status in all samples. Both the false‐positive and false‐negative results observed negatively affect patient care. Reports of the KRAS test results often lacked essential information. We aim to further expand this program to more laboratories to provide a robust estimate of the quality of KRAS testing in Europe, and provide the basis for remedial measures and harmonization.

This paper presents an overview of the conclusions from an international conference convened to address current issues related to the provision of Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening within Europe. Consensus was not aimed at stating whether such a programme should be implemented. Instead the focus was to provide a framework for countries and agencies who are considering or planning its establishment. The general principles and target population of Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening, advantages and disadvantages, health economics, monitoring and future evaluative and research directions were covered. A range of screening strategies have been assessed and compared: pre-conceptional and prenatal screening; individual and couple screening; sequential and simultaneous sampling or testing. Furthermore, technical issues were examined with respect to the choice of the panel of mutations, its detection rate, sensitivity, management of intermediate 'at-risk' couples, screening approach to different populations and ethnic minorities, and assurance of laboratory quality control. The consensus statement also aims to establish the benchmarks for communicating with health care providers, the general public and potential and actual participants before and after the genetic test.

DNA-based testing for genetic diseases has developed from nothing into a principal part of laboratory medicine over the past 15 years. In the rush to bring these powerful new technologies into medical use, issues of quality have not always been given sufficient attention. Efforts are now being made to assess the quality of the output of genetic testing laboratories, and the results show that there is room for improvement.