Čavčić M, Oschlies I, Fuchs M, Engert A, Klapper W
Institut für Pathologie, Sektion Hämatopathologie und Lymphknotenregister Kiel, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel/Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 14, 24105, Kiel, Deutschland.
Klinik I für Innere Medizin, Uniklinik Köln, Köln, Deutschland.
Pathologe. 2017 Nov;38(6):529-534. doi: 10.1007/s00292-017-0321-x.
Central collection of tissue blocks for pathological and translational research is particularly important in rare diseases. Transfer of tissue blocks from primary to central pathology is of crucial importance.
We aimed to answer the following questions: Has the transfer of tissue blocks sent for consultation or within clinical trials changed over the last 20 years? What are the reasons for reclaiming tissue blocks by the primary pathology and what actions would convince primary pathologists to leave the blocks in the reference pathology?
The first 100 biopsies of each year between 1995 and 2015 (n = 2100), as well as all tissue transfers within therapeutic studies (n = 1405, German Hodgkin Study Group, GHSG) between 1998 and 2015, were analyzed separately for block reclaims using the Department of Pathology database. A questionnaire evaluated the reasons for block reclaiming by the peripheral pathologists.
There is a significant increase in block reclaims during the period analyzed among submissions for consultation as well as in clinical trials (linear regression, p = 0.0195 and p = 0.0107). The percentage of block reclaims does not differ between consultations and cases submitted upon request within clinical trials (p = 0.2404, t-test). A survey among pathologies that reclaim the block showed that their willingness to leave the block at the reference center would increase if the compatibility with accreditation guidelines (39.3%), a positive statement from professional associations (25%), or a formal confirmation of availability (53.6%) is provided.
In particular, to improve research on rare diseases, it is desirable to point out the compatibility of central archiving in a designated center with accreditation guidelines.
对于罕见病的病理及转化研究而言，集中收集组织块尤为重要。将组织块从基层病理机构转移至中心病理机构至关重要。
我们旨在回答以下问题：在过去20年中，用于会诊或临床试验的组织块转移情况是否发生了变化？基层病理机构收回组织块的原因是什么，采取哪些行动能说服基层病理学家将组织块留在参考病理机构？
使用病理科数据库，分别分析了1995年至2015年期间每年的前100例活检样本（n = 2100），以及1998年至2015年期间治疗研究中的所有组织转移样本（n = 1405，德国霍奇金淋巴瘤研究组，GHSG）的组织块回收情况。通过问卷调查评估基层病理学家回收组织块的原因。
在所分析的时间段内，会诊提交样本以及临床试验中的组织块回收量均显著增加（线性回归，p = 0.0195和p = 0.0107）。会诊样本与临床试验中应要求提交的病例之间的组织块回收百分比无差异（p = 0.2404，t检验）。对回收组织块的病理机构进行的一项调查显示，如果符合认证指南（39.3%）、专业协会的积极声明（25%）或提供可用性的正式确认（53.6%），他们将组织块留在参考中心的意愿会增加。
特别是为了改善对罕见病的研究，指出指定中心的中央存档与认证指南的兼容性是很有必要的。
