Cross-contamination in cytology processing: a review of current practice.

Autor: Roberson J; Department of Pathology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama., Cuda JM; Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Davis Floyd AD; Department of Pathology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama., McGrath CM; Department of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania., Russell DK; Department of Pathology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York., Wendel-Spiczka A; American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Illinois., VandenBussche CJ; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland., Reynolds JP; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. Electronic address: reynolj4@ccf.org.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology [J Am Soc Cytopathol] 2022 Jul-Aug; Vol. 11 (4), pp. 194-200. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Mar 10.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2022.03.002
Abstrakt: Introduction: New cytopreparatory technologies decrease the need for direct smears in favor of an increased use of liquid-based cytology methods. Despite these practice changes, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments continue to require that cytopathology laboratories have procedures to prevent cross-contamination (CC). While the incidence of CC is not well documented, specific cytologic preparations and specimens with a high potential for CC have not been generally defined by professional guidelines or consensus. The American Society of Cytopathology Clinical Practice Committee surveyed cytology practitioners to better understand current practice related to CC in cytology.
Materials and Methods: The survey focused on four topics: (1) practice settings and demographic data; (2) current practice for meeting CC requirements; (3) practice for rapid on-site evaluation; and (4) preparation types considered high risk for CC. The survey was sent to all American Society of Cytopathology and American Society for Cytotechnology members from July 1 to August 14, 2020.
Results: Ninety-eight percent of laboratories had a written CC policy, with 66.18% of the policies addressing rapid on-site evaluation CC procedures. Documented cases of CC were rare. Alcohol-fixed, direct smears of Pap-stained fluids were deemed the most likely to be impacted by CC. Cell block contamination during the histologic processing were reported by 56.20% of respondents.
Conclusions: Changes in practice has resulted in decreased preparation types associated with a high potential for CC. Laboratories should follow a risk-based approach to define these cases. Knowledge of practice patterns among laboratories can guide the development and refinement of policy and procedures.
(Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: