Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 275 laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a multi-institutional reference database of extraneous tissue (contaminants) in surgical pathology.
DESIGN: 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. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-five surgical pathology laboratories institutions, predominantly from North America. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.
RESULTS: 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%.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.