Raouf E. Nakhleh

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Primary Carcinoma of the Colon and Rectum

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the “Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)” portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of this document.

Specimen labeling errors: A Q-probes analysis of 147 clinical laboratories

CONTEXT Accurate specimen identification is critical for quality patient care. Improperly identified specimens can result in delayed diagnosis, additional laboratory testing, treatment of the wrong patient for the wrong disease, and severe transfusion reactions. Specimen identification errors have been reported to occur at rates of 0.1% to 5%. OBJECTIVE To determine the frequency of labeling errors in a multi-institutional survey. DESIGN Labeling errors were categorized as: (1) mislabeled, (2) unlabeled, (3) partially labeled, (4) incompletely labeled, and (5) illegible label. Blood specimens for routine or stat chemistry, hematology, and coagulation testing were included. Labeling error rates were calculated for each participant and tested for associations with institutional demographic and practice variable information. RESULTS More than 3.3 million specimen labels were reviewed by 147 laboratories. Labeling errors were identified at a rate of 0.92 per 1000 labels. Two variables were statistically associated with lower labeling error rates: (1) laboratories with current, ongoing quality monitors for specimen identification (P = .008) and (2) institutions with 24/7 phlebotomy services for inpatients (P = .02). Most institutions had written policies for specimen labeling at the bedside or in outpatient phlebotomy areas (96% and 98%, respectively). Allowance of relabeling of blood specimens by primary collecting personnel was reported by 42% of institutions. CONCLUSIONS Laboratories actively engaged in ongoing specimen labeling quality monitors had fewer specimen labeling errors. Also, 24/7 phlebotomy services were associated with lower specimen error rates. Establishing quality metrics for specimen labeling and deploying 24/7 phlebotomy operations may contribute to improving the accuracy of specimen labeling for the clinical laboratory.

Patient safety and error reduction in surgical pathology.

CONTEXT National patient safety goals and error reduction efforts should be addressed by each surgical pathology laboratory. OBJECTIVE To review issues relevant to patient safety and error reduction in surgical pathology in the context of continuous quality improvement. DATA SOURCES The literature is reviewed. CONCLUSIONS Patient safety goals can and should be addressed within the context of a quality improvement plan. Multiple factors that contribute to errors in surgical pathology are discussed. The current literature defines the extent of these problems within specific segments of the test cycle (preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic). Potential solutions are presented that may reduce or avoid errors. In addition, general principles are outlined that enhance the laboratorys ability to successfully and continuously address patient safety and error reduction.

Serum fibrosis markers can predict rapid fibrosis progression after liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Although recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) after liver transplantation (LT) is universal, a minority of patients will develop cirrhosis within 5 years of surgery, which places them at risk for allograft failure. This retrospective study investigated whether 2 serum fibrosis markers, serum hyaluronic acid (HA) and YKL‐40, could be used to predict rapid fibrosis progression (RFP) post‐LT. These markers were compared with conventional laboratory tests, histological assessment, and hepatic stellate cell activity (HSCA), a key step in fibrogenesis, as assessed by immunohistochemical staining for alpha‐smooth muscle actin. Serum and protocol liver biopsy samples were obtained from 46 LT recipients at means of 5 ± 2 (biopsy 1) and 39 ± 6 (biopsy 2) months post‐LT, respectively. RFP was defined as an increase in the fibrosis score ≥ 2 from biopsy 1 to biopsy 2 (a mean interval of 33 ± 6 months). The ability of parameters at biopsy 1 to predict RFP was compared with the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). Of the 46 subjects, 15 developed RFP. Serum HA and YKL‐40 performed significantly better than conventional parameters and HSCA in predicting RFP post‐LT for HCV at biopsy 1, with AUROCs of 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The accuracy of serum HA ≥ 90 μg/L and YKL‐40 ≥ 200 μg/L in predicting RFP at biopsy 1 was 80% and 96%, respectively. In conclusion, we found that elevated levels of serum HA and YKL‐40 within the first 6 months after LT accurately predicted RFP. Larger studies evaluating the role of serum HA and YKL‐40 in post‐LT management are warranted. Liver Transpl 14:1294–1302, 2008.

Clinicopathologic Findings and Outcomes of Liver Transplantation Using Grafts From Donors With Unrecognized and Unusual Diseases

Despite certain strict criteria for suitable organ donors, some unrecognized and unusual diseases have been transmitted through liver transplantation to recipients. In the current series, we review our experience with 14 patients who underwent liver transplantation using donor grafts with unusual pathology, including amyloidosis (6), schistosomiasis (3), iron overload (2), and α‐1 antitrypsin deficiency (3). One of 6 patients who received grafts with amyloidosis developed vasculitis associated with the presence of arterial amyloid. With proper management, patients with donor schistosomiasis, iron overload and α‐1 antitrypsin deficiency appear to have outcomes comparable to liver transplantation using grafts without these findings. In conclusion, long‐term follow‐up is necessary to confirm these findings and understand the impact of using these grafts. Liver Transpl 12:310–315, 2006.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation on the Tumor Burden Before Liver Transplantation for Unresectable Cholangiocarcinoma

The very early experience with liver transplantation (LT) for cholangiocarcinoma (CC) was dismal because of the poor survival outcomes and the high recurrence rates. However, LT for CC in conjunction with neoadjuvant chemoradiation recently has shown encouraging results, although the data are extremely limited. At our institution between 2001 and 2008, 22 CC patients underwent protocol orthotopic LT at a median age of 45 years (range = 24‐63 years). At a median follow‐up of 601.5 days (range = 111‐1388 days), the median survival time of the cohort was 3.3 years. The 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐year Kaplan‐Meier survival probabilities were 90%, 70%, and 63%, respectively, whereas the historical 5‐year survival rates were 0% to 18% for intrahepatic CC and 23% to 26% for extrahepatic CC when patients underwent transplantation without neoadjuvant therapy. These encouraging survival rates for patients with this type of tumor, which is difficult to diagnose and treat, are no less significant when they are compared to the national 1‐ and 3‐year survival rates (86% and 68%, respectively) of patients undergoing deceased donor LT for malignant neoplasms of the liver (as reported by the United Network for Organ Sharing). In our series, disease recurrence was significantly associated with a larger residual tumor [6.3 versus 2.0 cm (mean values), P = 0.008] and with a shorter waiting time for LT after the chemoradiation protocol [18 versus 56 days (mean values), P = 0.04]. Our LT protocol for CC was found to be promising for patients with truly extrahepatic CC and for patients within stages I to IIB of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging system (100% survival at a median follow‐up of 2.2 years), but the results were notably poor for patients with stage III extrahepatic CC (median survival = 1.2 years). These observations highlight the need for accurate preoperative staging of CC for ideal LT recipient selection and the importance of a low tumor burden and a longer wait after neoadjuvant therapy. More effective chemoradiation regimens for reducing the tumor burden and the appropriate timing of LT after neoadjuvant chemoradiation require further research. Liver Transpl, 2012.

Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

CONTEXT Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies. OBJECTIVE To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors. DESIGN The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology. RESULTS The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement. CONCLUSIONS Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens from Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors (Carcinoid Tumors) of the Appendix

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the ‘‘Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)’’ portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of these documents.

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors (Carcinoid Tumors) of the Small Intestine and Ampulla

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the ‘‘Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)’’ portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of these documents.

Consensus statement on effective communication of urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology from the College of American Pathologists and Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology.

CONTEXT Recognizing the difficulty in applying the concept of critical values to anatomic pathology diagnoses, the College of American Pathologists and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology have chosen to reevaluate the concept of critical diagnoses. OBJECTIVE To promote effective communication of urgent and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytology. DESIGN A comprehensive literature search was conducted and reviewed by an expert panel. RESULTS A policy of effective communication of important results in surgical pathology and cytology is desirable to enhance patient safety and to address multiple regulatory requirements. CONCLUSIONS Each institution should create its own policy regarding urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in anatomic pathology. This policy should be separate from critical results or panic-value policies in clinical pathology, with the expectation of a different time frame for communication. Urgent diagnosis is defined as a medical condition that, in most cases, should be addressed as soon as possible. Significant, unexpected diagnosis is defined as a medical condition that is clinically unusual or unforeseen and should be addressed at some point in the patients course. Further details of this statement are provided.