Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Macroscopic examination of pathology specimens: a critical reappraisal
  1. Murali Varma1,
  2. Laura C Collins2,
  3. Runjan Chetty3,
  4. Dipti M Karamchandani4,
  5. Karen Talia5,
  6. John Dormer6,
  7. Monika Vyas2,
  8. Brendan Conn7,
  9. Yaileen D Guzmán-Arocho2,
  10. Adam V Jones1,
  11. Miranda Pring8,
  12. W Glenn McCluggage9
  1. 1Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
  2. 2Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3Deciphex/Diagnexia Pty Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
  4. 4Department of Pathology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
  5. 5Department of Pathology, Royal Children’s Hospital and Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  7. 7Department of Pathology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  8. 8Department of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  9. 9Department of Pathology, Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital Health and Social Services Trust, Belfast, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Murali Varma, Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, UK; MuraliCardiff{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Meticulous macroscopic examination of specimens and tissue sampling are crucial for accurate histopathology reporting. However, macroscopy has generally received less attention than microscopy and may be delegated to relatively inexperienced practitioners with limited guidance and supervision. This introductory paper in the minisymposium, Macroscopy Under the Microscope, focuses on issues regarding macroscopic examination and tissue sampling that have been insufficiently addressed in the published literature. It highlights the importance of specimen examination and sampling, discusses some general principles, outlines challenges and suggests potential solutions. It is critical to get macroscopy right the first time as it may not be possible to rectify errors even with expert histological assessment or to retrospectively collect missing data after the specimen retention period. Dissectors must, therefore, receive adequate guidance and supervision until they are proficient in macroscopic specimen examination. We emphasise the importance of the clinical context, optimal specimen fixation, succinct and clinically relevant macroscopic descriptions, macrophotography and judicious tissue sampling. We note that current recommendations based on the number of blocks to be submitted per maximum tumour dimension are ambiguous as the amount of tissue submitted in a cassette is not standardised and it is unclear whether ‘block’ refers to a tissue block or a paraffin block. Concerns around potential oversampling of ‘therapeutic’ specimens that could result in overdiagnosis due to detection of incidentalomas are also discussed. We hope that the issues discussed in this paper will engender debate on this clinically critical aspect of pathology practice.

  • DIAGNOSIS
  • Tissue Fixation
  • Evidence-Based Practice
  • NEOPLASMS
  • Pathology, Surgical

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Vikram Deshpande.

  • Twitter @MuraliV72899596, @runjanchetty, @guzmanarocho

  • Contributors MV wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors contributed to modifying and finalising the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests MV, LCC and RC are Associate Editors, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.