Measurement of stainer bath contamination and evaluation of common mitigation strategies

Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA.
Journal of histotechnology (Impact Factor: 0.31). 09/2012; 35(3):130-139. DOI: 10.1179/2046023612Y.0000000013
Source: PubMed


Methods relative to the staining of tissues using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) have largely not evolved beyond linear batch staining processes. The batching of slides in the histopathology laboratory inherently leads to the sharing of the various reagents among those specimens being processed through the baths. Studies analyzing the effects of reagent sharing during the common H&E linear staining method are limited. This study assessed rates of extraneous tissue contamination found in selected stainer bath containers from the deparaffinization portion of the H&E linear staining procedure. The impact of common mitigation strategies on those rates of contamination was evaluated.

22 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Specimen mix-ups inevitably occur and have the potential for great harm. The ability to investigate mix-ups objectively and assign fixed tissues to patients correctly is unfortunately limited, as most such assays require fresh specimens. A commercial kit based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be applied to the molecular genetic analysis of fixed tissues. This kit, which can amplify and distinguish 21 different genotypes at a polymorphic human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus, was applied to investigate 16 cases of potential specimen mismatches. The majority of tissues were small and essentially irreplaceable biopsy specimens, and four cases involved minute fragments of potential "floaters." Data were successfully obtained from all 16 cases despite the collection from several different hospitals and the small quantities of tissue. The assay required approximately 2 days for completion; therefore, data were returned within a clinically useful time period. This study provided evidence that molecular genetic assays based on the PCR can be applied to routinely obtained fixed-tissue specimens to investigate potential mismatches.
    American Journal of Clinical Pathology 01/1994; 100(6):666-70. · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop a multi-institutional reference database of extraneous tissue (contaminants) in surgical pathology. 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. Two hundred seventy-five surgical pathology laboratories institutions, predominantly from North America. 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. 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%. 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.
    Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 12/1996; 120(11):1009-14. · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anatomic pathology diagnosis is often based on morphologic features. In recent years, an appropriate increased attention to patient safety has led to an emphasis on improving maintenance of patient identity. Decreasing or eliminating cross-contamination from one specimen to another is an example of a patient identity issue for which process improvement can be initiated. To quantify the presence of cross-contamination from histology water baths and the slide stainers. We assessed for the presence of contaminants in water baths at cutting stations and in linear stainer stain baths. We assessed the potential for tissue discohesion and carryover in tissue samples and we assessed the potential for carryover onto blank slides sent through the stainer. In the 13 water baths examined (totalling 195 L of water), only one fragment of tissue was identified. The stain baths, however, contained abundant tissue contaminants, ranging in size from 2 to 3 cells to hundreds of cells. The first sets of xylenes and alcohols were the most heavily contaminated. Cross-contamination to blank slides occurred at a rate of 8%, with the highest frequency in the late afternoon. Cross-contamination can present a significant challenge in the histology laboratory. Although the histotechnologists' water baths are not heavily contaminated, the stainer baths do contain contaminating tissue fragments. Cross-contamination does occur onto blank slides in the experimental setting.
    Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 07/2009; 133(6):973-8. DOI:10.1043/1543-2165-133.6.973 · 2.84 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

22 Reads
Available from