Quality Control in FISH as Part of a Laboratory’s Quality Management System

  • Ros HastingsEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 659)


Quality control in the laboratory setting requires the establishment of a quality management system (QMS) that covers training, standard operating procedures, internal quality control, validation of tests, and external quality assessment (EQA). Laboratory accreditation through inspection by an external body is also desirable as this provides an effective procedure for assuring quality and also reassures the patient that the laboratory is working to acceptable international standards. The implementation of fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in the routine diagnostic laboratory requires rigorous quality control with attention to when it is appropriate to apply the technology, a systematic approach to the validation of probes, policies and procedures documenting the analytical validity of all FISH tests performed, technical procedures involved, and a comprehensive means of reporting results. Knowledge of the limitations of any FISH test is required in relation to the probe and/or tissue being examined, since errors of analysis and interpretation can result in incorrect patient management. A structured QMS with internal quality control and regular audits will minimise the error rate.

Key words

Internal quality control External quality control Quality management system Specificity and sensitivity Validation 



The author would like to thank Rod Howell and Mike Griffiths (UK NEQAS Steering Committee), for reviewing and giving helpful suggestions on this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    OECD (2005) Quality assurance and proficiency testing for molecular genetic testing: survey of 18 OECD member countries. (also applicable to Cytogenetic laboratories).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hastings, R.J., Maher, E.J., Quellhorst-Pawley, B., Howell. R. (2008) An internet-based External Quality Assessment (EQA) in cytogenetics that audits a laboratory’s analytical and interpretative performance. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 16, 1217–1224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mascarello, J.T., Brothman, A. R., Davison, K., Dewald, G.W., Herrman, M., McCandless, D., Park , P., Persons, D. L., Rao, K.W., Schneider, N. R., Vance, G. H., Cooley, L. D. (2002) Proficiency testing for laboratories performing fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA probes. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 126, 1458–1624.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO 15189. (2003) Medical laboratories – particular requirements for quality and competence. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howell, R., Hastings, R.J. (2006) The current scope of cytogenetics external quality assessment schemes and key recommendations for harmonization of external quality assessment in Europe. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    College of American Pathologists website.
  7. 7.
    European Cytogenetic Quality Assurance website.
  8. 8.
    UK NEQAS for Clinical Cytogenetics website.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Bethesda, M.D. ed. (1999) ACMG Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories. 2nd: American College of Medical Genetics.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hastings, R.J., Cavani, S., Dagna Bricarelli, F., Patsalis, P.C., Kristoffersson, U. (2006) Cytogenetic guidelines and quality assurance: A common European framework for quality assessment for constitutional and acquired cytogenetic investigations. ECA newsl. 17, 13–32. and Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hastings, R.J., Cavani, S., Dagna Bricarelli, F., Patsalis, P.C., Kristoffersson, U. (2007) Cytogenetic guidelines and quality assurance: A common European framework for quality assessment for constitutional and acquired cytogenetic investigations. A summary. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 15, 525–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolff, D.J., Bagg, A., Cooley, L.D., Dewald, G.W., Hirsch, B.A., Jacky, P.B., Rao, K.W., Rao, P.N. (2007) Guidance for fluorescence in situ hybridization testing in hematologic disorders. J. Med. Diagn. 9, 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiktor, A.E., Van Dyke, D.L., Stupca, P.J., Ketterling, R.P., Thorland, E.C., Shearer, B.M., Fink, S.R., Stockero, K.J., Majorowicz, J.R., Dewald, G.W. (2006) Preclinical validation of FISH assays for clinical practice. Genet. Med. 8, 16–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinhold, U., Hening, E., Leiblein, S., Niederweiser, D., Deininger, N.W.N. (2003) FISH for BCR-ABL interphases of peripheral blood neutrophils but not of unselected white cells correlates with bone marrow cytogeneitcs in CML patients treated with imatinib. Leukaemia 17, 1925–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Association for Clinical Cytogenetics. Professional guidelines for clinical
  17. 17.
    Shaffer, L.G., Slovak, M.L., Campbell, L.J. eds. (2009) ISCN (2009): An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. S. Karger, BaselGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tefferi, A., Dewald, G.W., Litzow, M.L., Cortes, J., Mauro, M.J., Talpaz, M., Kantarjian, H.M. (2005) Chronic myeloid leukemia: Current application of cytogenetics and molecular testing for diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin. Proc. 80, 390–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UK NEQAS for Clinical Cytogenetics, Women’s CentreJohn Radcliffe HospitalOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations