Q&A column
November 2023
Q. A molecular laboratory received an order from an oncologist for next-generation sequencing testing. The patient’s tissue sample was in the custody of a different laboratory, which has a policy requiring patient consent to release materials for reference lab testing.
The oncologist planned to obtain consent from the patient during a scheduled appointment, but the patient’s condition unexpectedly worsened and the patient could no longer travel for the appointment. Neither the custodial laboratory nor the treating health system have mechanisms for electronic consent.
As a result of the lack of options for obtaining consent remotely and the custodial laboratory’s stringent consent policy, potentially life-altering NGS testing was delayed for more than a month. Is this restrictive approach to releasing patient material for reference laboratory testing supported by CAP guidelines? Read answer.
Q. Is it acceptable to perform weak D testing on a newborn who has an RhD-negative blood type and a positive direct antiglobulin test? We know a positive DAT might cause false-positive results on an Rh test, but can it cause false-negative results? Read answer.