Search

Biospecimens acquired during routine medical practice are the primary sources of molecular information about patients and their diseases that underlies precision medicine and translational research. In cancer care, molecular analysis of biospecimens is especially common because it often determines treatment choices and may be used to monitor therapy in real time. However, patient specimens are collected, handled, and processed according to routine clinical procedures during which they are subjected to factors that may alter their molecular quality and composition. Such artefactual alteration may skew data from molecular analyses, render analysis data uninterpretable, or even preclude analysis altogether if the integrity of a specimen is severely compromised. As a result, patient care and safety may be affected, and medical research dependent on patient samples may be compromised. Despite these issues, there is currently no requirement to control or record preanalytical variables in clinical practice with the single exception of breast cancer tissue handled according to the guideline jointly developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists (CAP) and enforced through the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program. Recognizing the importance of molecular data derived from patient specimens, the CAP Personalized Healthcare Committee established the Preanalytics for Precision Medicine Project Team to develop a basic set of evidence-based recommendations for key preanalytics for tissue and blood specimens. If used for biospecimens from patients, these preanalytical recommendations would ensure the fitness of those specimens for molecular analysis and help to assure the quality and reliability of the analysis data.

Context: Biospecimens must have appropriate clinical annotation (data) to ensure optimal quality for both patient care and research. Additional clinical preanalytic variables are the focus of this continuing study., Objective: To complete the identification of the essential preanalytic variables (data fields) that can, and in some instances should, be attached to every collected biospecimen by adding the additional specific variables for clinical chemistry and microbiology to our original 170 variables., Design: The College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Intelligence and Health Information Technology Committee sponsored a second Biorepository Working Group to complete the list of preanalytic variables for annotating biospecimens. Members of the second Biorepository Working Group are experts in clinical pathology and microbiology. Additional preanalytic area-specific variables were identified and ranked along with definitions and potential negative impacts if the variable is not attached to the biospecimen. The draft manuscript was reviewed by additional national and international stakeholders., Results: Four additional required preanalytic variables were identified specifically for clinical chemistry and microbiology biospecimens that can be used as a guide for site-specific implementation into patient care and research biorepository processes., Conclusions: In our collective experience, selecting which of the many preanalytic variables to attach to any specific set of biospecimens used for patient care and/or research is often difficult. The additional ranked list should be of practical benefit when selecting preanalytic variables for a given biospecimen collection.

Context: Biospecimens must have appropriate clinical annotation (data) to ensure optimal quality for both patient care and research. Clinical preanalytic variables are the focus of this study., Objective: To define the essential preanalytic variables (data fields) that should be attached to every collected biospecimen and to provide a complete list of such variables, along with their relative importance, which can vary, depending on downstream use, institutional needs, and information technology capabilities., Design: The College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Intelligence and Health Information Technology Committee sponsored a Biorepository Working Group to develop a ranked list of the preanalytic variables for annotating biospecimens. Members of the working group were experts in anatomic, clinical, and molecular pathology; biobanking; medical informatics; and accreditation. Several members had experience with federal government programs, such as the National Cancer Institute's Biospecimens and Biorepository Branch and the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Center Program. Potential preanalytic variables were identified and ranked along with available supporting evidence, definitions, and potential negative effects if the variable was not attached to the biospecimen. Additional national and international stakeholders reviewed the draft manuscript., Results: The ranked listing of 170 preanalytic variables produced can be used as a guide for site-specific implementation into patient care and/or research biorepository processes. Conclusions.-In our collective experience, it is often difficult to choose which of the many preanalytic variables to attach to any specific set of biospecimens used for patient care and/or research. The provided ranked list should aid in the selection of preanalytic variables for a given biospecimen collection.

Pathologists have long served as custodians of human biospecimens collected for diagnostic purposes. Rapid advancements in diagnostic technologies require that pathologists change their practices to optimize patient care. The proper handling of biospecimens creates opportunities for pathologists to improve their diagnoses while assessing prognosis and treatment. In addition, the growing need for high-quality biorepositories represents an opportunity for community pathologists to strengthen their role within the health care team, ensuring that clinical care is not compromised while facilitating research. This article provides a resource to community pathologists learning how to create high-quality biorepositories and participating in emerging opportunities in the biorepository field. While a variety of topics are covered to provide breadth of information, the intent is to facilitate a level of understanding that permits community pathologists to make more informed choices in identifying how best their skills and practice may be augmented to address developments in this field.

Objective: To evaluate current laboratory practices and rates for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), a category of epithelial cell abnormality in the Bethesda System., Design: Questionnaire surveys were mailed in December 1993 and March 1994., Setting: Cytopathology laboratory participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology (PAP)., Results: Most responding laboratories (82.5%) limited the use of "atypia" terminology to abnormalities of undetermined significance. Nearly half of the laboratories employed only the term ASCUS for squamous epithelial changes in this category. The median rate of ASCUS in 1993 was 2.8%, with 10% of laboratories reporting rates greater than 9.0%. The median squamous intraepithelial lesion rate was 2.0%, with a median ASCUS-squamous intraepithelial lesion ratio of 1.3. The majority of laboratories qualified a portion of ASCUS cases and issued recommendations for follow-up when appropriate. Fifty-six percent of laboratories surveyed included patients diagnosed with ASCUS in follow-up programs. Laboratories estimated that about 20% (median response) of patients with ASCUS smears had a squamous intraepithelial lesion or equivalent diagnosis made within a year's follow-up., Conclusions: The ASCUS category is used by the majority of laboratories as recommended by the Bethesda System, but reporting rates vary. The results of this survey and associated surveys provide laboratories with useful benchmark figures for interlaboratory comparison of ASCUS practices.