The impact of involvement of biomedical scientists in specimen dissection and selection of blocks for histopathology: a study of time benefits and specimen handling quality in Ayrshire and Arran area laboratory

Consensus recommendations for the standardized histopathological evaluation and reporting after radical oesophago-gastrectomy (HERO consensus)

BACKGROUND

Variation in the approach, radicality, and quality of gastroesophageal surgery impacts patient outcomes. Pathological outcomes such as lymph node yield are routinely used as surrogate markers of surgical quality, but are subject to significant variations in histopathological evaluation and reporting. A multi-society consensus group was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations for the standardized assessment of gastroesophageal cancer specimens.

METHODS

A consensus group comprised of surgeons, pathologists, and oncologists was convened on behalf of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain & Ireland. Literature was reviewed for 17 key questions. Draft recommendations were voted upon via an anonymous Delphi process. Consensus was considered achieved where >70% of participants were in agreement.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved on 18 statements for all 17 questions. Twelve strong recommendations regarding preparation and assessment of lymph nodes, margins, and reporting methods were made. Importantly, there was 100% agreement that the all specimens should be reported using the Royal College of Pathologists Guidelines as the minimum acceptable dataset. In addition, two weak recommendations regarding method and duration of specimen fixation were made. Four topics lacked sufficient evidence and no recommendation was made.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus recommendations provide explicit guidance for gastroesophageal cancer specimen preparation and assessment, to provide maximum benefit for patient care and standardize reporting to allow benchmarking and improvement of surgical quality.

Pathologists' assistants, an essential healthcare workforce: the experience of a surgical pathology department in Italy

AIMS

The progressive increase of both the workload and the complexity of laboratory procedures, along with shortage of staff, has made evident the need to increase the efficiency in the pathology departments. To support the pathologists, a new technical professional role, the pathologists' assistant (PA), has been introduced.

METHODS

We decided to carry out a retrospective analysis on PAs' performance. This was compared with that of junior/senior pathologists in the amount and type of surgical specimens examined, the number of lymph node retrieved in colorectal resections, the number of cases needing a second grossing procedure and the average time spent in grossing. As the COVID-19 pandemic period in fact resulted in a dramatic reduction of histological cases in our department, we divided PA activities into two periods, according to the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

'Simple' specimens made up the majority (92%) of the specimens examined by PAs in pre-COVID-19 period while 'complex' specimens, often neoplastic, represented the minor part (7%). However, 'simple' specimens dropped to 81% and 'complex' specimens rose to 18% in the COVID-19 period, when PAs had the chance to test themselves with more complicated surgical samples, under the supervision of a pathologist. Lymph node retrieval rate and average time spent in grossing are in line with literature data and confirm that PAs performance is comparable with pathologists' one, in selected settings.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, PA has represented a fundamental time-saving resource for the pathologists, who can devote time almost exclusively to diagnostic reporting.

Current experience and attitudes to biomedical scientist cut-up: results of an online survey of UK consultant histopathologists

Aims

To assess the current utilisation of biomedical scientist (BMS) surgical specimen cut-up in the UK and attitudes of consultant histopathologists to the practice.

Methods

Email invitations were sent to all UK consultant histopathologists to participate in an online survey (SurveyMonkey) assessing attitudes to and utilisation of BMS surgical specimen cut-up.

Results

463 individual replies were received (35% response rate) from 1320 invitations to participate, covering 181 UK histopathology departments. A majority of the respondents were either fully in favour of BMS cut-up (52.7%), or in favour but with some reservation (46.2%). Only five respondents (1.1%) were completely opposed to BMS cut-up. 267 (57.7%) respondents reported that their BMS staff loaded biopsies only. 148 (32%) reported BMS cut-up of more complex benign specimens, and 83 (17.9%) reported BMS handling of orientated skin specimens. Only 39 (8.4%) reported that BMS staff in their departments currently cut-up larger cancer resections.

Conclusions

This survey is representative of current BMS cut-up practice in the UK. The majority of UK consultant histopathologists replying to this survey support BMS cut-up to some degree, but utilisation of BMS cut-up is rather limited and patchy at present. Cost, staffing constraints, perceived quality issues and individual consultant preferences are cited as reasons for limited uptake currently. Recognised benefits of promoting BMS cut-up include better use of consultant time, enhanced team working, BMS job satisfaction and career progression, and better adherence to standard operating procedures.