A quality control program for mutation detection in KIT and PDGFRA in gastrointestinal stromal tumours.

BACKGROUND: Although most gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) carry oncogenic mutations in KIT exons 9, 11, 13 and 17, or in platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exons 12, 14 and 18, around 10% of GIST are free of these mutations. Genotyping and accurate detection of KIT/PDGFRA mutations in GIST are becoming increasingly useful for clinicians in the management of the disease. METHOD: To evaluate and improve laboratory practice in GIST mutation detection, we developed a mutational screening quality control program. Eleven laboratories were enrolled in this program and 50 DNA samples were analysed, each of them by four different laboratories, giving 200 mutational reports. RESULTS: In total, eight mutations were not detected by at least one laboratory. One false positive result was reported in one sample. Thus, the mean global rate of error with clinical implication based on 200 reports was 4.5%. Concerning specific polymorphisms detection, the rate varied from 0 to 100%, depending on the laboratory. The way mutations were reported was very heterogeneous, and some errors were detected. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that such a program was necessary for laboratories to improve the quality of the analysis, because an error rate of 4.5% may have clinical consequences for the patient.

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.