Procurement of Human Tissues for Research Banking in the Surgical Pathology Laboratory: Prioritization Practices at Washington University Medical Center.

Academic hospitals and medical schools with research tissue repositories often derive many of their internal human specimen acquisitions from their site's surgical pathology service. Typically, such acquisitions come from appropriately consented tissue discards sampled from surgical resections. Because the practice of surgical pathology has patient care as its primary mission, competing needs for tissue inevitably arise, with the requirement to preserve adequate tissue for clinical diagnosis being paramount. A set of best-practice gross pathology guidelines are summarized here, focused on the decision for tissue banking at the time specimens are macroscopically evaluated. These reflect our collective experience at Washington University School of Medicine, and are written from the point of view of our site biorepository. The involvement of trained pathology personnel in such procurements is very important. These guidelines reflect both good surgical pathology practice (including the pathologic features characteristic of various anatomic sites) and the typical objectives of research biorepositories. The guidelines should be helpful to tissue bank directors, and others charged with the procurement of tissues for general research purposes. We believe that appreciation of these principles will facilitate the partnership between surgical pathologists and biorepository directors, and promote both good patient care and strategic, value-added banking procurements.

p16 positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma:an entity with a favorable prognosis regardless of tumor HPV status.

BACKGROUND: In the human papillomavirus (HPV) era, the best way to assess oropharyngeal squamous carcinomas (SCC) for risk stratification is not clear. Many recommend use of both p16 immunohistochemistry and HPV in situ hybridization (ISH). A significant minority of tumors are p16 positive and HPV ISH negative, the significance of which is unclear. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-nine oropharyngeal SCC were tested by immunohistochemistry for p16 and by ISH for high-risk HPV. For p16 positive, HPV ISH negative cases, PCR was conducted for HPV. The findings were correlated with pathologic and clinical findings. RESULTS: Of the 239 cases, 187 (78%) were positive for p16. Of these, 139 (74%) were positive for HPV by ISH. Of the remaining 48 cases, 45 had material for PCR. Nineteen were positive for HPV, leaving a group of 26 p16 positive and HPV undetectable SCCs. In the p16 positive cohort, there was no difference in survival between HPV ISH positive and negative cases. Comparing the HPV ISH positive and HPV ISH and PCR negative SCC, there was again no difference in survival. p16 positive, HPV negative SCC still had significantly better survival than p16 negative SCC in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for p16 positive, HPV negative oropharyngeal SCC are not significantly different from p16 positive, HPV positive tumors and are significantly better than for p16 negative tumors. These results suggest that p16 immunohistochemistry alone is the best test to use for risk stratification in oropharyngeal SCC.