Bone and Soft Tissue Extirpations: Whole-Specimen Freezing Delivers Superior Pathological Evaluation

Authors

  • Veronica Taylor Mayo Clinic
  • Dora Lam-Himlin Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
  • Monique Harize Phoenix Children's Hospital
  • Shipra Garg Phoenix Children's Hospital
  • David Carpentieri Phoenix Children's Hospital
  • Steve Taylor Phoenix Children's Hospital

Keywords:

Whole-specimen freezing, slab-sectioning

Abstract

Background: Bone resections involved by either benign or malignant disease are complex specimens requiring special processing. Irrespective of experience, many pathologists, residents, and pathologists' assistants (PAs) are apprehensive of these resections due to their infrequency. For these extirpations, serial slab-sections are ideal for identifying margin status, size of tumor, documentation of diagnosis, tumor classification, imaging correlation and presence of discontinuous lesions. However, the variable density of bone and soft tissues creates a challenge for prosectors to reliably yield multiple intact thin slabs. Standardized protocols provide both reassurance and a systematic approach and herein we describe a method as implemented at the sister institutions of Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix and Phoenix Children's Hospital.

Methods: Utilizing the approach of whole-specimen freezing and slab-sectioning, we prospectively processed 41 cases of bone and soft tissue resections between 2011 and 2014 and histologic sections were retrospectively evaluated for freeze artifact, bone dust, thermal injury and immunoreactivity.  Slab-sectioning following whole-specimen freezing resulted in crisply visible anatomic relationships across multiple planes allowing for superior gross inspection, easy correlation with prior imaging, photographic documentation and ease in the selection of histologic sections.

 

 Result: Microscopically, freeze artifact was present in 6 of 39 (15%) cases available for review, but was insignificant to interpretation and was not affected by freeze duration (up to 72 hours). No loss of immunoreactivity was present (0 of 5 cases) and neither bone dust nor thermal injury were significant findings in any of the cases. 

 

 Conclusion: The protocol is easy to follow, yields reproducible results and induces no significant freeze artifact, providing excellent histomorphology regardless of tumor type involving bone.  We recommend slab-sectioning following whole-specimen freezing and we offer our procedure in detail.

 

Author Biographies

Veronica Taylor, Mayo Clinic

Laboratory Medicine and Pathology

MHS, PA(ASCP), Associate Professor

Dora Lam-Himlin, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology,

MD

Monique Harize, Phoenix Children's Hospital

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,

MD

Shipra Garg, Phoenix Children's Hospital

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,

MD

David Carpentieri, Phoenix Children's Hospital

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

MD

Steve Taylor, Phoenix Children's Hospital

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

MHS, PA(ASCP), HTL

References

1. Raymond, AK, Jaffe, N. Osteosarcoma multidisciplinary approach to the management from the pathologist’s perspective. Cancer Treat Res. 2009;152:63-84.
2. Lester, SC. Bone and Joints. In: Lester, SC. Manual of Surgical Pathology. 2nd ed. China: Elsevier; 2006:228-231.
3. Abdul-Karim FW, Bauer TW, Kilpatrick SE, Raymond KA, et al. Recommendations for the reporting of bone tumors. Hum Pathol. 2004;35:1173-1178.
4. McCarthy EF. Bone. In: Westra WH, Hruban RH, Phelps TH, Isacson C. Surgical pathology and dissection: an illustrated guide. 2 ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2003:114-119.
5. Rosai J. Extremities—amputation for osseous tumor. In: Rosai J. Manual of surgical pathology gross room procedures. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1981:B7-B8.
6. Khuu H, Moore D, Young S, Jaffe KA, et al. Examination of tumor and tumor-like conditions of bone. Ann Diagn Pathol. 1999;3:364-369.
7. Patterson K. The pathologic handling of skeletal tumors. Am J Clin Path. 1998;109:S53-S66 (supplemental).
8. Weatherby RP, Unni KK: Practical aspects of handling orthopedic specimens in the surgical pathology laboratory. Pathol Ann. 1982;17:1-31.
9. Wold E. Practical approach to processing osteosarcomas in the surgical pathology laboratory. Ped Dev Path. 1998;1:449-454.
10. Rajani R, Gibbs CP. Treatment of bone tumors. Surg Pathol Clin. 2012;5(1):301-318.
11. Janeway KA, Barkauskas DA, Krailo MD, Meyers PA, et al. Outcome for adolescent and young adult patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer. 2012;118:4597-4605.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

09-08-2016

How to Cite

1.
Taylor V, Lam-Himlin D, Harize M, Garg S, Carpentieri D, Taylor S. Bone and Soft Tissue Extirpations: Whole-Specimen Freezing Delivers Superior Pathological Evaluation. Ann of Pathol and Lab Med [Internet]. 2016 Aug. 9 [cited 2024 Nov. 19];3(3):A121-127. Available from: https://pacificejournals.com/journal/index.php/apalm/article/view/apalm810

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 3 (2016)

Section

Original Article

License

Copyright (c) 2016 Veronica Taylor, Dora Lam-Himlin, Monique Harize, Shipra Garg, David Carpentieri, Steve Taylor

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).