Limits...
The state of cell block variation and satisfaction in the era of molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine.

Crapanzano JP, Heymann JJ, Monaco S, Nassar A, Saqi A - Cytojournal (2014)

Bottom Line: There was no statistical significance between the three most common CB preparation methods and satisfaction with quality.Many are dissatisfied with their current method of CB preparation, and there is no consistent method to prepare CBs.In today's era of personalized medicine with an increasing array of molecular tests being applied to cytological specimens, there is a need for a standardized protocol for CB optimization to enhance cellularity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Address: Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: In the recent past, algorithms and recommendations to standardize the morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular classification of lung cancers on cytology specimens have been proposed, and several organizations have recommended cell blocks (CBs) as the preferred modality for molecular testing. Based on the literature, there are several different techniques available for CB preparation-suggesting that there is no standard. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of CB preparation techniques utilized in various practice settings and analyze current issues, if any.

Materials and methods: A single E-mail with a link to an electronic survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Cytopathology and other pathologists. Questions pertaining to the participants' practice setting and CBs-volume, method, quality and satisfaction-were included.

Results: Of 95 respondents, 90/95 (94%) completed the survey and comprise the study group. Most participants practice in a community hospital/private practice (44%) or academic center (41%). On average, 14 CBs (range 0-50; median 10) are prepared by a laboratory daily. Over 10 methods are utilized: Plasma thrombin (33%), HistoGel (27%), Cellient automated cell block system (8%) and others (31%) respectively. Forty of 90 (44%) respondents are either unsatisfied or sometimes satisfied with their CB quality, with low-cellular yield being the leading cause of dissatisfaction. There was no statistical significance between the three most common CB preparation methods and satisfaction with quality.

Discussion: Many are dissatisfied with their current method of CB preparation, and there is no consistent method to prepare CBs. In today's era of personalized medicine with an increasing array of molecular tests being applied to cytological specimens, there is a need for a standardized protocol for CB optimization to enhance cellularity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

For laboratories using the Cellient system, this graph shows the driving reasons for purchasing the system to prepare cell blocks
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4007481&req=5

Figure 5: For laboratories using the Cellient system, this graph shows the driving reasons for purchasing the system to prepare cell blocks

Mentions: Among the three most common methodologies (plasma thrombin, HistoGel and CACBS) analysis of satisfaction of CB quality (differences in the proportion of “Yes” [satisfied] and “No/Sometimes” [unsatisfied/sometimes satisfied] responses) demonstrates that HistoGel scores the lowest, but the results are not statistically significant (P = 0.09) [Figure 4]. The main driving factors for utilization of CACBS by the eight participants include enhanced cellular yield, rapid processing time and ability to process small biopsies [Figure 5]. High cost is the main reason for not employing CACBS [Figure 6].


The state of cell block variation and satisfaction in the era of molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine.

Crapanzano JP, Heymann JJ, Monaco S, Nassar A, Saqi A - Cytojournal (2014)

For laboratories using the Cellient system, this graph shows the driving reasons for purchasing the system to prepare cell blocks
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4007481&req=5

Figure 5: For laboratories using the Cellient system, this graph shows the driving reasons for purchasing the system to prepare cell blocks
Mentions: Among the three most common methodologies (plasma thrombin, HistoGel and CACBS) analysis of satisfaction of CB quality (differences in the proportion of “Yes” [satisfied] and “No/Sometimes” [unsatisfied/sometimes satisfied] responses) demonstrates that HistoGel scores the lowest, but the results are not statistically significant (P = 0.09) [Figure 4]. The main driving factors for utilization of CACBS by the eight participants include enhanced cellular yield, rapid processing time and ability to process small biopsies [Figure 5]. High cost is the main reason for not employing CACBS [Figure 6].

Bottom Line: There was no statistical significance between the three most common CB preparation methods and satisfaction with quality.Many are dissatisfied with their current method of CB preparation, and there is no consistent method to prepare CBs.In today's era of personalized medicine with an increasing array of molecular tests being applied to cytological specimens, there is a need for a standardized protocol for CB optimization to enhance cellularity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Address: Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: In the recent past, algorithms and recommendations to standardize the morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular classification of lung cancers on cytology specimens have been proposed, and several organizations have recommended cell blocks (CBs) as the preferred modality for molecular testing. Based on the literature, there are several different techniques available for CB preparation-suggesting that there is no standard. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of CB preparation techniques utilized in various practice settings and analyze current issues, if any.

Materials and methods: A single E-mail with a link to an electronic survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Cytopathology and other pathologists. Questions pertaining to the participants' practice setting and CBs-volume, method, quality and satisfaction-were included.

Results: Of 95 respondents, 90/95 (94%) completed the survey and comprise the study group. Most participants practice in a community hospital/private practice (44%) or academic center (41%). On average, 14 CBs (range 0-50; median 10) are prepared by a laboratory daily. Over 10 methods are utilized: Plasma thrombin (33%), HistoGel (27%), Cellient automated cell block system (8%) and others (31%) respectively. Forty of 90 (44%) respondents are either unsatisfied or sometimes satisfied with their CB quality, with low-cellular yield being the leading cause of dissatisfaction. There was no statistical significance between the three most common CB preparation methods and satisfaction with quality.

Discussion: Many are dissatisfied with their current method of CB preparation, and there is no consistent method to prepare CBs. In today's era of personalized medicine with an increasing array of molecular tests being applied to cytological specimens, there is a need for a standardized protocol for CB optimization to enhance cellularity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus