Comments on: Testing-testing: do we give verbiage a bad name? http://pathtalk.org/archives/54 is a weblog about pathology and laboratory medicine. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:40:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Gretchen Galliano http://pathtalk.org/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-56 Gretchen Galliano Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:20:12 +0000 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54#comment-56 thanks!! will check it out!! thanks!! will check it out!!

]]> By: PathDoc15 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-53 PathDoc15 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:41:48 +0000 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54#comment-53 BTW I think that link will fail if you don't have a subscription to nature. SO the reference is Leukemia (2003) 17; 2257-2317. BTW I think that link will fail if you don’t have a subscription to nature. SO the reference is Leukemia (2003) 17; 2257-2317.

]]> By: PathDoc15 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-52 PathDoc15 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:39:54 +0000 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54#comment-52 Gretchen - This is something to get you (or other interested parties)started on BIOMED 2 www.nature.com/leu/journal/v17/n12/pdf/2403202a.pdf More and more labs are using these standardized primer sets for IGH and TCR gene rearrangement studies. The amount of data to draw from describing sensitivity and specificity for these assays is always growing when many are using standardized primer sets. Gretchen – This is something to get you (or other interested parties)started on BIOMED 2

http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v17/n12/pdf/2403202a.pdf

More and more labs are using these standardized primer sets for IGH and TCR gene rearrangement studies. The amount of data to draw from describing sensitivity and specificity for these assays is always growing when many are using standardized primer sets.

]]> By: Gretchen Galliano http://pathtalk.org/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-44 Gretchen Galliano Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:17:30 +0000 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54#comment-44 Could you write more about the BIOMED2 project? It seems what i've been exposed to as far as informatics is there is a lot of effort going in to dealing with the information we have already existing in our LIS which exist in variable formats, vocabularies etc it seems before molecular testing really really REALLY explodes like many people predict some effort should go into to thinking about how we are reporting these tests.. you know for the long run another great point about methodology as well---what does a MRD value mean if the patient moves from one state to another or even switches doctors or switches insurances and therefore switches labs? Could you write more about the BIOMED2 project?

It seems what i’ve been exposed to as far as informatics
is there is a lot of effort going in to dealing with the information we have already existing in our LIS which exist in variable formats, vocabularies etc

it seems before molecular testing really really REALLY explodes like many people predict some effort should go into to thinking about how we are reporting these tests.. you know for the long run

another great point about methodology as well—what does a MRD value mean if the patient moves from one state to another or even switches doctors or switches insurances and therefore switches labs?

]]> By: PathDoc15 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-40 PathDoc15 Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:53:51 +0000 http://pathtalk.org/archives/54#comment-40 Gretchen - You touch on some interesting points with reporting. In fact, BCR/ABL1 quantitative PCR is perhaps currently one of the most difficult to report tests that there is. This is not because of gene nomiclature, but rather because every lab does their test a little different. A different control gene. A different standard curve. A different primer set. In addition to standard nominclature, we should be moving towards standard testing formats so that patient data is 'transferable' from provider to provider. An example would be the BIOMED2 project. Gretchen – You touch on some interesting points with reporting. In fact, BCR/ABL1 quantitative PCR is perhaps currently one of the most difficult to report tests that there is. This is not because of gene nomiclature, but rather because every lab does their test a little different. A different control gene. A different standard curve. A different primer set. In addition to standard nominclature, we should be moving towards standard testing formats so that patient data is ‘transferable’ from provider to provider. An example would be the BIOMED2 project.

]]>