Improvements in cell block processing: The Cell-Gel method.

BACKGROUND: The ability to produce adequate cell blocks profoundly impacts the diagnostic usefulness of cytology specimens. Cell blocks are routinely processed from fine-needle aspiration specimens or concentrated fluid samples. Obtaining directed passes for the sole purpose of producing a cell block is common practice, particularly when the cytopathologist anticipates the need for ancillary immunocytochemical stains and/or molecular studies. METHODS: The authors developed an effective and inexpensive process for producing cell blocks that consistently yields abundant cellular material, which they have termed the Cell-Gel method. This method can be simplified into 3 main steps: 1) preparing the sample; 2) constructing the cell block; and 3) processing the cell block. Highlights of the protocol include using a hemolytic fixative for sample preparation and disposable base molds for cell block construction. RESULTS: The cell block failure rate in the current study decreased from 18% with the HistoGel Tube method (January 2014-December 2014) to 6% with the Cell-Gel method (January 2015-December 2016). The authors evaluated 110 cell blocks processed with the HistoGel Tube method and 110 cell blocks processed with the Cell-Gel method, for a total evaluation of 220 cell blocks. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed an effective and inexpensive protocol for producing cell blocks that consistently yields abundant cellular material. The Cell-Gel method uses a hemolytic fixative and disposable base molds to produce adequate cell blocks. When the method was implemented, the cell block failure rate of the study laboratory decreased by approximately 67%. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:267-276. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

From slide sets to sound bites: teaching and learning pathology in the digital age.

Educational evolution is particularly important in pathology, particularly cytopathology, due to the vast amounts of independent learning required to master this field. In this study, learning challenges faced by pathology residents were addressed through a variety of educational modalities including 24 short (∼10 minute) online tutorials (dubbed "Sound Bites") covering selected topics in cytopathology as well as other areas of anatomic and clinical pathology. Additionally, residents were provided with an annotated glass slide set covering pediatric pathology with an associated multiple choice self-assessment as well as multiheaded microscope slide review sessions. Use of these modalities was tracked and residents surveyed about their experiences using them. All 20 residents (100%) reported using Sound Bites either from work computers, home computers, or mobile devices. Residents reported that easy accessibility, brevity, and opportunities for self-assessment were important variables contributing to this use, and that Sound Bite use would make them more likely to benefit from in-person teaching through lectures and/or slide sessions. Within 12 months of the release of the first Sound Bite, individual Sound Bites were accessed a total of 1169 times (mean: 49 times per Sound Bite). In contrast, slide sets were only accessed about once a month and were only employed by 30% of residents (6 of 20) for independent study; only 20% (4 of 20) completed the accompanying multiple choice self-assessment. All residents attended multiheaded microscope slide review sessions. Whereas traditional educational methods remain valuable tools in pathology education, these data suggest that short, web-based tutorials represent a valuable adjuvant teaching tool.

Failure of current laboratory protocols to detect lot-to-lot reagent differences: findings and possible solutions.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining consistency of results over time is a challenge in laboratory medicine. Lot-to-lot reagent changes are a major threat to consistency of results. METHODS: For the period October 2007 through July 2012, we reviewed lot validation data for each new lot of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) reagents (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Analyses of discarded patient samples were used for comparison of lots. For the same period, we determined the distributions of reported patient results for each lot of reagents at the 2 institutions. RESULTS: Lot-to-lot validation studies identified no reagent lot as significantly different from the preceding lot. By contrast, significant lot-to-lot changes were seen in the means and medians of 105 668 reported patient IGF-I results during the period. The frequency of increased results increased nearly 2-fold to a high of 17%, without detectable changes in the underlying patient demographics. Retrospective statistical analysis indicated that lot-to-lot comparison protocols were underpowered and that validation studies for this assay required testing >100 samples to achieve 90% power to detect reagent lots that would significantly alter the distributions of patient results. CONCLUSIONS: The number of test samples required for adequate lot-to-lot validation protocols is high and may be prohibitively large, especially for low-volume or complex assays. Monitoring of the distributions of patient results has the potential to detect lot-to-lot inconsistencies relatively quickly. We recommend that manufacturers implement remote monitoring of patient results from analyzers in multiple institutions to allow rapid identification of between-lot result inconsistency.