Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 120(11):1009–1014, November, 1996.
![Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 275 laboratories [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper abstract bibtex
Paper abstract bibtex \textlessAbstractText Label="OBJECTIVE" NlmCategory="OBJECTIVE"\textgreaterTo develop a multi-institutional reference database of extraneous tissue (contaminants) in surgical pathology.\textless/AbstractText\textgreater \textlessAbstractText Label="DESIGN" NlmCategory="METHODS"\textgreaterIn 1994, participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes quality improvement program performed prospective and retrospective evaluations of extraneous tissue found in surgical pathology microscopic sections for a period of 4 weeks or until 1000 slides were reviewed in each participating laboratory.\textless/AbstractText\textgreater \textlessAbstractText Label="PARTICIPANTS" NlmCategory="METHODS"\textgreaterTwo hundred seventy-five surgical pathology laboratories institutions, predominantly from North America.\textless/AbstractText\textgreater \textlessAbstractText Label="MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES" NlmCategory="METHODS"\textgreaterExtraneous tissue contamination rate for slides in prospective and retrospective reviews; staffing and practice procedures; location of extraneous tissue on slides; type of extraneous tissue (normal, abnormal, nonneoplastic, neoplasm, microorganisms, etc); class of extraneous tissue (slide or block contaminants); source of extraneous tissue (different or same case); origin of extraneous tissue (pathology laboratory, physician's office or operating room); and degree of diagnostic difficulty caused by extraneous tissue.\textless/AbstractText\textgreater \textlessAbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS"\textgreaterThree hundred twenty-one thousand seven hundred fifty-seven slides were reviewed in the prospective study and 57083 slides in the retrospective study. There was an overall extraneous tissue rate of 0.6% of slides (2074/321757) in the prospective study and 2.9% of slides (1653/57083) in the retrospective study. Of those slides with extraneous tissue, the extraneous tissue was located near diagnostic tissue sections in 59.5% of the slides reviewed prospectively and in 25.3% of slides reviewed retrospectively; deeper sections were performed to evaluate extraneous tissue in 12.2% of prospective cases and in 3.1% of retrospective cases. Of the laboratories, 98% had written guidelines for changing solution in tissue processors, and 64.9% had guidelines for maintaining water baths free of extraneous tissue. A total of 98.9% used lens paper, filter bags, or sponges for processing fragmented and small specimens. Written protocols for documentation of extraneous tissue in surgical pathology reports were established in 6.1% of laboratories, for removal of extraneous tissue from blocks in 5.7%, and for removal of extraneous tissue from microscopic slides in 4.7%. In 24% of laboratories no comment or record was kept to document extraneous tissue. Extraneous tissue consisted of neoplasm in 12.7% of the prospectively reviewed slides and in 6.0% of the retrospectively reviewed slides. For the prospective study, 59.4% of extraneous tissue was classified as slide contaminants, and 28.4% was found to be contaminants within the paraffin block; for the retrospective study, 72.9% was classified as slide contaminants and 15.9% as block contaminants. For the prospective study, 63.2% of extraneous tissue was presumed to be from a different case, and in the retrospective study, 48.5% was presumed to be from a different case. Over 90% of extraneous tissue was thought to originate from the pathology laboratory. The degree of diagnostic difficulty caused by extraneous tissue was judged to be severe in 0.4% of slides in the prospective study and 0.1% of slides in the retrospective study. In the prospective study, it could not be determined whether the tissue in the diagnostic sections was extraneous in 0.6% of slides, and in the retrospective study, it could not be determined whether tissue in the diagnostic sections was extraneous in 0.1%.\textless/AbstractText\textgreater \textlessAbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS"\textgreaterThis study has documented the frequency, type, origin, source, and diagnostic difficulty of extraneous tissue and presents benchmarks of extraneous tissue experienced in the general practice of surgical pathology.\textless/AbstractText\textgreater
@article{gephardt_extraneous_1996,
title = {Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology: a {College} of {American} {Pathologists} {Q}-{Probes} study of 275 laboratories},
volume = {120},
issn = {0003-9985},
shorttitle = {Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12049100},
abstract = {{\textless}AbstractText Label="OBJECTIVE" NlmCategory="OBJECTIVE"{\textgreater}To develop a multi-institutional reference database of extraneous tissue (contaminants) in surgical pathology.{\textless}/AbstractText{\textgreater}
{\textless}AbstractText Label="DESIGN" NlmCategory="METHODS"{\textgreater}In 1994, participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes quality improvement program performed prospective and retrospective evaluations of extraneous tissue found in surgical pathology microscopic sections for a period of 4 weeks or until 1000 slides were reviewed in each participating laboratory.{\textless}/AbstractText{\textgreater}
{\textless}AbstractText Label="PARTICIPANTS" NlmCategory="METHODS"{\textgreater}Two hundred seventy-five surgical pathology laboratories institutions, predominantly from North America.{\textless}/AbstractText{\textgreater}
{\textless}AbstractText Label="MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES" NlmCategory="METHODS"{\textgreater}Extraneous tissue contamination rate for slides in prospective and retrospective reviews; staffing and practice procedures; location of extraneous tissue on slides; type of extraneous tissue (normal, abnormal, nonneoplastic, neoplasm, microorganisms, etc); class of extraneous tissue (slide or block contaminants); source of extraneous tissue (different or same case); origin of extraneous tissue (pathology laboratory, physician's office or operating room); and degree of diagnostic difficulty caused by extraneous tissue.{\textless}/AbstractText{\textgreater}
{\textless}AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS"{\textgreater}Three hundred twenty-one thousand seven hundred fifty-seven slides were reviewed in the prospective study and 57083 slides in the retrospective study. There was an overall extraneous tissue rate of 0.6\% of slides (2074/321757) in the prospective study and 2.9\% of slides (1653/57083) in the retrospective study. Of those slides with extraneous tissue, the extraneous tissue was located near diagnostic tissue sections in 59.5\% of the slides reviewed prospectively and in 25.3\% of slides reviewed retrospectively; deeper sections were performed to evaluate extraneous tissue in 12.2\% of prospective cases and in 3.1\% of retrospective cases. Of the laboratories, 98\% had written guidelines for changing solution in tissue processors, and 64.9\% had guidelines for maintaining water baths free of extraneous tissue. A total of 98.9\% used lens paper, filter bags, or sponges for processing fragmented and small specimens. Written protocols for documentation of extraneous tissue in surgical pathology reports were established in 6.1\% of laboratories, for removal of extraneous tissue from blocks in 5.7\%, and for removal of extraneous tissue from microscopic slides in 4.7\%. In 24\% of laboratories no comment or record was kept to document extraneous tissue. Extraneous tissue consisted of neoplasm in 12.7\% of the prospectively reviewed slides and in 6.0\% of the retrospectively reviewed slides. For the prospective study, 59.4\% of extraneous tissue was classified as slide contaminants, and 28.4\% was found to be contaminants within the paraffin block; for the retrospective study, 72.9\% was classified as slide contaminants and 15.9\% as block contaminants. For the prospective study, 63.2\% of extraneous tissue was presumed to be from a different case, and in the retrospective study, 48.5\% was presumed to be from a different case. Over 90\% of extraneous tissue was thought to originate from the pathology laboratory. The degree of diagnostic difficulty caused by extraneous tissue was judged to be severe in 0.4\% of slides in the prospective study and 0.1\% of slides in the retrospective study. In the prospective study, it could not be determined whether the tissue in the diagnostic sections was extraneous in 0.6\% of slides, and in the retrospective study, it could not be determined whether tissue in the diagnostic sections was extraneous in 0.1\%.{\textless}/AbstractText{\textgreater}
{\textless}AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS"{\textgreater}This study has documented the frequency, type, origin, source, and diagnostic difficulty of extraneous tissue and presents benchmarks of extraneous tissue experienced in the general practice of surgical pathology.{\textless}/AbstractText{\textgreater}},
number = {11},
urldate = {2011-01-31},
journal = {Archives of Pathology \& Laboratory Medicine},
author = {Gephardt, G N and Zarbo, R J},
month = nov,
year = {1996},
pmid = {12049100},
keywords = {Databases, Factual, Humans, Laboratories, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Pathology, Surgical, Prospective Studies, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Societies, Medical, United States},
pages = {1009--1014},
}Downloads: 0