Ancillary Studies: Contribution to Error and Error Prevention

  • Dhananjay ChitaleEmail author


Special stains or ancillary studies have been used for decades in diagnostic surgical pathology to complement interpretations. As our knowledge and understating of disease processes accumulate with fast pace, numerous assays have been introduced in routine laboratory workflow and many on the horizon to be incorporated as “standard of care.” To tackle this tsunami of ancillary tests, pathologists and technical staff must maintain quality control and quality assurance in every step of the specimen cycle to deliver highly reliable, complete, reproducible results in a timely manner. In this chapter, we focus on major QA/QC monitors that scrutinize successful validation, implementation, and continuous QA/QC monitoring of assays pertaining to immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology. Examples of specific tests (e.g., antibodies) as vignettes are used to highlight contributions of the ancillary tests to error and error prevention.


Ancillary tests Quality assurance Quality control Error prevention Surgical pathology Immunohistochemistry Molecular 


  1. 1.
    Makki JS. Diagnostic implication and clinical relevance of ancillary techniques in clinical pathology practice. Clin Med Insights Pathol. 2016;9:5–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Association Of Directors Of, A., et al. Recommendations for quality assurance and improvement in surgical and autopsy pathology. Hum Pathol. 2006;37(8):985–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nakhleh RE. What is quality in surgical pathology? J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(7):669–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raskin RD. Laboratory testing under the microscope: the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. J Health Hosp Law. 1992;25(2):33–6, 63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachner P, Hamlin W. Federal regulation of clinical laboratories and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988--Part I. Clin Lab Med. 1993;13(3):739–52; discussion 737–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bachner P, Hamlin W. Federal regulation of clinical laboratories and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988--Part II. Clin Lab Med. 1993;13(4):987–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammond ME, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6(4):195–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolff AC, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(2):241–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor CR. The total test approach to standardization of immunohistochemistry. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):945–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor CR, Cote RJ. Immunomicroscopy: a diagnostic tool for the surgical pathologist. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor CR. An exaltation of experts: concerted efforts in the standardization of immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol. 1994;25(1):2–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engel KB, Moore HM. Effects of preanalytical variables on the detection of proteins by immunohistochemistry in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(5):537–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kingsbury AE, et al. Tissue pH as an indicator of mRNA preservation in human post-mortem brain. Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 1995;28(2):311–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Labat-Moleur F, et al. TUNEL apoptotic cell detection in tissue sections: critical evaluation and improvement. J Histochem Cytochem. 1998;46(3):327–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khoury T, et al. Delay to formalin fixation effect on breast biomarkers. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(11):1457–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khoury T, Liu Q, Liu S. Delay to formalin fixation effect on HER2 test in breast cancer by dual-color silver-enhanced in situ hybridization (Dual-ISH). Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2014;22(9):688–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khoury T. Delay to formalin fixation (cold ischemia time) effect on breast cancer molecules. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;149(4):275–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Masood S, et al. Influence of fixation, antibody clones, and signal amplification on steroid receptor analysis. Breast J. 1998;4(1):33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Apple S, et al. The effect of delay in fixation, different fixatives, and duration of fixation in estrogen and progesterone receptor results in breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(4):592–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moatamed NA, et al. Effect of ischemic time, fixation time, and fixative type on HER2/neu immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization results in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136(5):754–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor CR, Rudbeck L, Dako D. Education guide - immunohistochemical staining methods. Glostrup: Dako Denmark A/S; 2013.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Helander KG. Kinetic studies of formaldehyde binding in tissue. Biotech Histochem. 1994;69(3):177–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Werner M, et al. Effect of formalin tissue fixation and processing on immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(7):1016–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morgan JM, et al. Possible role of tissue-bound calcium ions in citrate-mediated high-temperature antigen retrieval. J Pathol. 1994;174(4):301–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ostrowski K, Komender J, Kwarecki K. Quantitative investigations on the solubility of proteins extracted from tissues fixed by different chemical and physical methods. Experientia. 1961;17:183–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Srinivasan M, Sedmak D, Jewell S. Effect of fixatives and tissue processing on the content and integrity of nucleic acids. Am J Pathol. 2002;161(6):1961–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hammond ME, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(6):907–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindeman NI, et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2013;15(4):415–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scharl A, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of progesterone receptor in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue using a monoclonal antibody. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1990;247(2):63–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van den Broek LJ, van de Vijver MJ. Assessment of problems in diagnostic and research immunohistochemistry associated with epitope instability in stored paraffin sections. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2000;8(4):316–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jones WT, Stockard CR, Grizzle WE. Effects of time and temperature during attachment of sections to microscope slides on immunohistochemical detection of antigens. Biotech Histochem. 2001;76(2):55–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Malmstrom PU, et al. Expression of proliferative cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) in urinary bladder carcinoma. Evaluation of antigen retrieval methods. APMIS. 1992;100(11):988–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dabbs DJ. Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Oss CJ, Van Regenmortel MHV. Immunochemistry. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barlow DJ, Edwards MS, Thornton JM. Continuous and discontinuous protein antigenic determinants. Nature. 1986;322(6081):747–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vani K, et al. National HER2 proficiency test results using standardized quantitative controls: characterization of laboratory failures. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(2):211–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Willingham MC. Conditional epitopes. Is your antibody always specific? J Histochem Cytochem. 1999;47(10):1233–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morsi HM, et al. The patterns of expression of an apoptosis-related CK18 neoepitope, the bcl-2 proto-oncogene, and the Ki67 proliferation marker in normal, hyperplastic, and malignant endometrium. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;19(2):118–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kohler G, Milstein C. Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature. 1975;256(5517):495–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Raybould TJ, Takahashi M. Production of stable rabbit-mouse hybridomas that secrete rabbit mAb of defined specificity. Science. 1988;240(4860):1788–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Torlakovic EE, et al. Standardization of positive controls in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: recommendations from the International Ad Hoc Expert Committee. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2015;23(1):1–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Press MF, Cordon-Cardo C, Slamon DJ. Expression of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in normal human adult and fetal tissues. Oncogene. 1990;5(7):953–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moll R, et al. The catalog of human cytokeratins: patterns of expression in normal epithelia, tumors and cultured cells. Cell. 1982;31(1):11–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miettinen M, et al. ERG transcription factor as an immunohistochemical marker for vascular endothelial tumors and prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(3):432–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tomlins SA, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310(5748):644–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pettersson A, et al. The TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement, ERG expression, and prostate cancer outcomes: a cohort study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2012;21(9):1497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ginsberg JP, et al. EWS-FLI1 and EWS-ERG gene fusions are associated with similar clinical phenotypes in Ewing’s sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(6):1809–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Swanson PE. Heffalumps, jagulars, and cheshire cats. A commentary on cytokeratins and soft tissue sarcomas. Am J Clin Pathol. 1991;95(4 Suppl 1):S2–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Miettinen M. Immunoreactivity for cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen in leiomyosarcoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1988;112(6):637–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mohsin SK, et al. Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry and clinical outcome in breast cancer: a validation study. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(12):1545–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roach C, et al. Development of a companion diagnostic PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay for pembrolizumab therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2016;24(6):392–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Torlakovic EE, et al. Evolution of quality assurance for clinical immunohistochemistry in the era of precision medicine - Part 2: Immunohistochemistry test performance characteristics. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25(2):79–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ingram M, et al. Tissue engineered tumor models. Biotech Histochem. 2010;85(4):213–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Torlakovic EE, et al. Standardization of negative controls in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: recommendations from the international ad hoc expert panel. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2014;22(4):241–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    ISO, International Organization for Starndardization. ISO 9000:2015(en), Quality management systems—fundamentals and vocabulary. Available at: 2015.
  56. 56.
    Torlakovic EE, et al. Evolution of quality assurance for clinical immunohistochemistry in the era of precision medicine. Part 3: Technical validation of immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays in clinical IHC laboratories. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25(3):151–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cessna MH, et al. Expression of ALK1 and p80 in inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor and its mesenchymal mimics: a study of 135 cases. Mod Pathol. 2002;15(9):931–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cutz JC, et al. Canadian anaplastic lymphoma kinase study: a model for multicenter standardization and optimization of ALK testing in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(9):1255–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hapgood G, Savage KJ. The biology and management of systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Blood. 2015;126(1):17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gascoyne RD, et al. ALK-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is associated with Clathrin-ALK rearrangements: report of 6 cases. Blood. 2003;102(7):2568–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Benharroch D, et al. ALK-positive lymphoma: a single disease with a broad spectrum of morphology. Blood. 1998;91(6):2076–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hewitt SM. Clinical, and I. Laboratory Standards. Quality assurance for design control and implementation of immunohistochemistry assays: approved guideline. 2011.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Taylor CR. New revised Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines for immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2011;19(4):289–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(11):1432–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cheung CC, et al. Evolution of quality assurance for clinical immunohistochemistry in the era of precision medicine: Part 1: Fit-for-purpose approach to classification of clinical immunohistochemistry biomarkers. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25(1):4–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cheung CC, et al. Evolution of quality assurance for clinical immunohistochemistry in the era of precision medicine: Part 4: Tissue tools for quality assurance in immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25(4):227–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Medicare. Medicaid and CLIA programs; regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)--HCFA. Final rule with comment period. Fed Regist. 1992;57(40):7002–186.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Regulations for implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988: a summary. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1992;41(RR-2):1–17.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tholen DW, Clinical, and I. Laboratory Standards. Using proficiency testing to improve the clinical laboratory: approved guideline. Wayne: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    The UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Immunocytochemistry and In Situ Hybridisation (ICC & ISH). Accessed at: 2018 [cited 2018 November 18, 2018]; Available from:
  71. 71.
    NordicQC. Accessed at: 2018 November 18, 2018; Available from:
  72. 72.
    Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program (RCPAQAP). Accessed at: 2018 November 18, 2018; Available from:
  73. 73.
    Canadian Association of Pathologists-Association canadienne des pathologistes National Standards, C., et al. Canadian Association of Pathologists-Association canadienne des pathologistes National Standards Committee/Immunohistochemistry: best practice recommendations for standardization of immunohistochemistry tests. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133(3):354–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lee JW, et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm Res. 2006;23(2):312–28.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Food and Drug Administration/Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance documents (medical devices and radiation emitting products)—guidance for submission of immunohistochemistry applications to the FDA; final guidance for industry, 1998. Available at:, F.a.D.A. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Editor. 1998.
  76. 76.
    An Overview of the Human Genome Project What was the Human Genome Project? Accessed at: 2016 [cited 2018 November 18, 2018]; Available from:
  77. 77.
    Recommendation for a Human Cancer Genome Project. Report of Working Group on Biomedical Technology. Accessed at: 2005 [cited 2018 November 18, 2018]; Available from:
  78. 78.
    McGhee JD, von Hippel PH. Formaldehyde as a probe of DNA structure. 3. Equilibrium denaturation of DNA and synthetic polynucleotides. Biochemistry. 1977;16(15):3267–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Douglas MP, Rogers SO. DNA damage caused by common cytological fixatives. Mutat Res. 1998;401(1–2):77–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wong C, et al. Mutations in BRCA1 from fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue can be artifacts of preservation. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1998;107(1):21–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Akbari M, et al. Low copy number DNA template can render polymerase chain reaction error prone in a sequence-dependent manner. J Mol Diagn. 2005;7(1):36–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Williams C, et al. A high frequency of sequence alterations is due to formalin fixation of archival specimens. Am J Pathol. 1999;155(5):1467–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chen G, et al. Cytosine deamination is a major cause of baseline noise in next-generation sequencing. Mol Diagn Ther. 2014;18(5):587–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    McGhee JD, von Hippel PH. Formaldehyde as a probe of DNA structure. r. Mechanism of the initial reaction of Formaldehyde with DNA. Biochemistry. 1977;16(15):3276–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Baloglu G, et al. The effects of tissue fixation alternatives on DNA content: a study on normal colon tissue. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2008;16(5):485–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Moore JL, et al. Fixation and decalcification of adult zebrafish for histological, immunocytochemical, and genotypic analysis. BioTechniques. 2002;32(2):296–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wickham CL, et al. Formic acid decalcification of bone marrow trephines degrades DNA: alternative use of EDTA allows the amplification and sequencing of relatively long PCR products. Mol Pathol. 2000;53(6):336.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Marchetti A, et al. EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of a large series of cases and development of a rapid and sensitive method for diagnostic screening with potential implications on pharmacologic treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(4):857–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Janne PA, et al. A rapid and sensitive enzymatic method for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation screening. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(3 Pt 1):751–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Thunnissen E, et al. EGFR and KRAS quality assurance schemes in pathology: generating normative data for molecular predictive marker analysis in targeted therapy. J Clin Pathol. 2011;64(10):884–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mattocks CJ, et al. A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(12):1276–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Jennings L, et al. Recommended principles and practices for validating clinical molecular pathology tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(5):743–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ordonez NG. Value of GATA3 immunostaining in tumor diagnosis: a review. Adv Anat Pathol. 2013;20(5):352–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gown AM. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry: what can go wrong and how to prevent it. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(9):893–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations