Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10412174

[Confusing tissue samples: causes, consequences, prevention].

S Banaschak·C Witting·B Brinkmann
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The rising numbers of tissue samples for securing a diagnosis has led to a multitude of tissue samples in pathology institutes. Criteria and measures for ensuring the quality of histological diagnosis have been developed. Corresponding rules for the organization of the tissue sampling up to their processing do not yet exist. Suspicion of interchanged samples occurs much more often than it actually happens; however, it is important to be aware of the possibility so as to inform the clinician and to eliminate any possible causes of the confusion. The civil and penal consequences of such an interchanging, the subsequent "incorrect" diagnosis and the therapeutic measures are secondary compared to the potentially dramatic consequences for the patient. Important causes for an interchanging and possible preventive measures are presented.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesHumansPathologyQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Banaschak, C Witting, B Brinkmann. 1999. [Confusing tissue samples: causes, consequences, prevention].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002920050338

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Evaluation of blood lead proficiency testing: comparison of open and blind paradigms.

BACKGROUND: Most proficiency testing (PT) programs operate with an open design in which clearly identified performance samples are distributed directly to participating laboratories on a shipping schedule announced in advance. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of assessing clinical laboratory performance for blood lead with an open PT by comparing its results with a double-blinded testing protocol. METHODS: Aliquots from up to 72 blood lead performance pools from the New York State Department of Health and the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene were disguised as routine patient specimens and submitted in two phases to up to 42 certified clinical laboratories for blood lead analysis. These 42 laboratories also received aliquots of the same performance samples for blood lead analysis directly from the "open" PT program provider. RESULTS: Data reported under blind and open strategies were scored against acceptable target ranges using the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) criteria established for blood lead, i.e., +/- 0.19 micromol/L (+/- 4 microg/dL) or +/- 10%, whichever is greater. Performance differences between the strategies were also assessed. We found that 17.7% of all blind PT results were classified as unacceptable compared with only 4.5% of open PT results (P <0.001). In phase 1, 13 of 22 laboratories (60%) exhibited a statistically significant difference (P <0.05) between their blind and open PT performances, although for 6 laboratories the poorer blind performance may not necessarily have led to unsuccessful PT participation under CLIA '88 criteria. Seven (32%) laboratories had unsuccessful aggregate performance (<80%) under blind testing while maintaining successful performance in open testing. Of these seven, two had gross discrepancies motivating further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that although approximately 60% of clinical laboratories make special efforts to improve analytical performance on open PT samples relative to performance achieved for routine patient specimens, in most cases the differences are clinically insignificant and would not likely affect cumulative PT performance. Occasional use of blind PT may deter the inclination to treat performance samples more carefully.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗
PubMed2000

The "chip" as a specific genetic tool.

DNA microarrays are powerful tools for the analysis of the organization and regulation of the brain, in both illness and health. Such messenger RNA expression methods are outgrowths of a marriage between the several genome sequencing projects and a wide variety of physical, chemical, optical, and electronic systems. The advantages of microarray analyses include the ability to study the regulation of several genes or even the entire genome in a single experiment. However, there are substantive issues associated with the use of these tools that need to be considered before drawing conclusions about the genomic regulation of the brain. These issues include the loss of most anatomic (i.e., cellular and circuit) specificity, only fair sensitivity, lack of absolute quantitative data, poor comparability between studies, and high variability in sample values, to mention the most obvious. In this review we point to some of the solutions proposed for these problems and novel techniques and approaches for newer methods. Among these are methods for making arrays more sensitive, including nonarray messenger RNA expression systems. The future of this field and its links to deeper protein and cell biology are both emphasized.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗
PubMed2000

The 1998-1999 collaborative exercises and proficiency testing program on DNA typing of the Spanish and Portuguese Working Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GEP-ISFG).

A total of 28 laboratories (labs) submitted results for the 1998 collaborative exercise and the proficiency testing program of the Spanish and Portuguese Working Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GEP-ISFG) group. This number increased to 46 labs in 1999. Six bloodstains were submitted, each one with 200 microl soaked in cotton except the sample no. 6 submitted for DNA quantification which had 2 microl. One of the samples was a mixed stain. A paternity testing case and a criminal case in the 1998 trial (GEP'98) and two paternity testing cases in 1999 (GEP'99) were included and the statistical evaluation of the evidence was requested in both cases. In the GEP'99 trial, a theoretical paternity testing case was included. A total of 52 DNA genetic markers were used by the participants in the GEP'98 trial, which increased to 101 in GEP'99. Despite this increasing number of participating labs, results remained quite satisfactory. All the labs used PCR-based DNA polymorphisms with an increasing number of markers, obtaining good results. SLPs were used by a decreasing number of labs but the results indicated a good level of expertise despite the different protocols used. Good results were also obtained for mtDNA despite the difficulties presented by the samples due to the presence of length heteroplasmy in some samples in both trials. The detection of heteroplasmy should, however, be improved. Similar conclusions were reached for both, the paternity and the criminal case by all the labs. Common methodologies for the statistical evaluation of the paternity case were used and the paternity index and the probability of paternity (with an a priori value of 0.5) reported by most of the labs. Also, a great uniformity was found in the evaluation of the criminal case despite the lack of a specific hypothesis in the design of the exercise. Some errors in statistical programs or in calculations were detected in a theoretical paternity case included in the GEP'99 trial for statistical analysis.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗