title: Subjectivity in chromosome band-level estimation: a multicenter study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Chromosome band level is the primary quality indicator for G-banded metaphase chromosome analysis. Although current professional guidelines address the minimum necessary band level for constitutional studies, there is no study documenting the comparative performance of different band-level estimation methods.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study compared 5 band-level estimation methods (Stallard, Vancouver, Welborn, United Kingdom External Quality Assurance Scheme, and Ford) in a multicenter study in which 82 readers from 7 different clinical cytogenetics laboratories evaluated the same 10 karyotypes (5 from amniotic fluid and 5 from peripheral blood) by each method.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was a 94% correlation between the five band-level estimation methods. The Welborn method yielded significantly lower scores for amniotic fluid karyotypes (P < 0.01) but not for peripheral blood karyotypes (P = 0.75). The distribution of scores obtained from different readers suggests a high level of subjectivity in chromosome band-level assessment. The variation in band-level estimation did not correlate with reader experience or study center, except for readers from one laboratory, for which the distribution of scores was significantly lower (P < 0.01).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results from this study suggest that the consistent use of one method is more important than the actual method employed for monitoring karyotype quality.
authors.affiliation: 1] Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [2] Cytogenetics Laboratory, ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
authors.forename: Katherine B
authors.initials: KB
authors.lastname: Geiersbach
authors.affiliation: ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
authors.forename: Anna E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Gardiner
authors.affiliation: ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
authors.forename: Andrew
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Wilson
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Molecular Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
authors.forename: Shashirekha
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Shetty
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
authors.forename: Hélène
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Bruyère
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Zabawski
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
authors.forename: Debra F
authors.initials: DF
authors.lastname: Saxe
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
authors.forename: Rebecca
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Gaulin
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
authors.forename: Cynthia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Williamson
authors.affiliation: Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
authors.forename: Daniel L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Van Dyke
mesh_terms: D000653:Amniotic Fluid / Q000166:cytology*; D001773:Blood Cells / Q000166:cytology*; D002871:Chromosome Banding / Q000379:methods*; D003582:Cytogenetics; D006801:Humans; D059785:Karyotype; D006113:United Kingdom