Trends in Bone Marrow Sampling and Core Biopsy Specimen Adequacy in the United States and Canada: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess bone marrow (BM) sampling in academic medical centers. METHODS: Data from 6,374 BM samples obtained in 32 centers in 2001 and 2011, including core length (CL), were analyzed. RESULTS: BM included a biopsy (BMB; 93%) specimen, aspirate (BMA; 92%) specimen, or both (83%). The median (SD) CL was 12 (8.5) mm, and evaluable marrow was 9 (7.6) mm. Tissue contraction due to processing was 15%. BMB specimens were longer in adults younger than 60 years, men, and bilateral, staging, and baseline samples. Only 4% of BMB and 2% of BMB/BMA samples were deemed inadequate for diagnosis. BM for plasma cell dyscrasias, nonphysician operators, and ancillary studies usage increased, while bilateral sampling decreased over the decade. BM-related quality assurance programs are infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: CL is shorter than recommended and varies with patient age and sex, clinical circumstances, and center experience. While pathologists render diagnoses on most cases irrespective of CL, BMB yield improvement is desirable.

Using p16 immunohistochemistry to classify morphologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: correlation of ambiguous staining patterns with HPV subtypes and clinical outcome.

p16INK4a immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used to facilitate the diagnosis of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cervical precancerous lesions. Although most p16 results are distinctly positive or negative, certain ones are ambiguous: they meet some but not all requirements for the "block-positive" pattern. It is unclear whether ambiguous p16 immunoreactivity indicates oncogenic HPV infection or risk of progression. Herein, we compared HPV genotypes and subsequent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) outcomes among 220 cervical biopsies with a differential diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 based on hematoxylin and eosin morphology and varying degrees of p16 immunoreactivity. p16 results were classified as block positive (n=40, 18%), negative (n=130, 59%), or ambiguous (n=50, 23%), a category we further grouped into 3 patterns: strong/basal (n=18), strong/focal (n=15), and weak/diffuse (n=17). Seventy percent of ambiguous p16 lesions were negative for the most common low- and high-risk HPV types; the remaining 30% were positive for HPV 16, 18, 45, 58, 59, or 66. Three patterns revealed comparably low HPV detection rates (28%, 27%, and 35%). During 12-month surveillance, HSILs were detected in 35% of the p16 block-positive group, 1.5% of negative group, and 16% of the ambiguous group. The accuracy of ambiguous p16 immunoreactivity in predicting oncogenic HPV and HSIL outcome is significantly lower than that of the block-positive pattern but greater than negative staining. Specific guidelines for this intermediate category should prevent diagnostic errors and help implement p16 IHC in general practice.