[2132] Diagnostic Tissue Preparation: Further Assessment of Microwave-Based Compared to Conventional Tissue Processing

Clifford R Blieden, Maria C Reyes, Monica T Garcia-Buitrago, Vania Nose, Stephen Vernon, Azorides R Morales. University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL; Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Miami, FL

Background: Rapid tissue processing (RTP) has changed tissue preparation. Compared to conventional vacuum infiltration processing (VIP), RTP reduces turn around time, patient anxiety, and conserves laboratory resources. Despite this, there has been some unwillingness to use RTP as opposed to VIP. Our goal was to determine if pathologists at various levels of training and academic appointment could discern among preparations using RTP and VIP. Additionally, we investigated the effect of reagent deterioration with both methods of tissue processing with both machines.
Design: Tissue was collected from a variety of surgical specimens fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin. Two groups of 1500 specimens were processed with different reagent compositions by RTP (A and B respectively); one group of 1500 specimens was processed via VIP. All sections were prepared by the same histotechnologist. Samples from the initial, middle, and end phase of the cycles were taken. A total of 90 slides (30 from each interval) from each of the three groups were analyzed by five individuals at various stages in their careers; a second year resident, a fellow, an assistant professor, an associate professor, and a tenured professor. Reviewers were instructed to rate the quality of sections from 1 (best) to 3 (worst) and to indicate whether or not they could distinguish the section processed via VIP. The type of machine used to process each section was not revealed to the reviewers.
Results: Cumulative results were as follows: For solution A using RTP, 366 slides were given a grade 1, 77 were given a grade 2, and 7 were given a grade 3. For solution B using RTP 354 slides were given a grade 1, 80 were given a grade 2, and 16 were given a grade 3. For CP, 372 were given a grade 1, 73 were given a grade 2, and 5 were given a grade 3. For all three groups, there was no significant difference in grades for the three time intervals, indicating that reagents did not deteriorate over the course of 1500 sample batches for any group.
Conclusions: All reviewers produced similar results. There was no difference in quality among two RTP groups and the VIP. This study further validates the quality of rapid tissue processing compared to conventional methods. The advantages of rapid tissue processing (continuous sample loading, less reagent expenditures and toxicity, and identical quality of histologic preparation when compared with conventional methods) further endorses the use of the RTP among laboratories in all clinical practices.
Category: Techniques

Monday, March 19, 2012 1:00 PM

Poster Session II # 301, Monday Afternoon


Close Window