Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2011 Jun;52(3):410-4.
doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.410.

Identification of tumor specimens by DNA analysis in a case of histocytological paraffin tissue block swapping

Anupuma Raina  1 , Bhuvnesh Yadav, Sher Ali, Tirath Das Dogra
Affiliations
Case Reports

Identification of tumor specimens by DNA analysis in a case of histocytological paraffin tissue block swapping

Anupuma Raina et al. Croat Med J. 2011 Jun.

Abstract

We report on a patient who was diagnosed with high-grade breast carcinoma by all the pre-surgery clinical evidence of malignancy, but histopathological reports did not reveal any such tumor residue in the post-surgical tissue block. This raised a suspicion that either exchange of block, labeling error, or a technical error took place during gross examination of the tissue. The mastectomy residue was unprocurable to sort out the problem. So, two doubtful paraffin blocks were sent for DNA fingerprinting analysis. The partial DNA profiles (8-9/15 loci) were obtained from histocytological blocks. The random matching probability for both the paraffin blocks and the patient's blood were found to be 1 in 4.43E4, 1.89E6, and 8.83E13, respectively for Asian population. Multiplex short tandem repeat analysis applied in this case determined that the cause of tumor absence was an error in gross examination of the post-surgical tissue. Moreover, the analysis helped in justifying the therapy given to the patient. Thus, with DNA fingerprinting technique, it was concluded that there was no exchange of the blocks between the two patients operated on the same day and the treatment given to the concerned patient was in the right direction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The electropherogram of the patient’s blood sample (Sample A).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The electropherogram of the histopathological blocked tissue 1 (sample B).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The electropherogram of histopathological blocked tissue 2 (sample C).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buttler JM. Short tandem repeat typing technologies used in human identity testing. Biotechniques. 2007;43:ii–v. doi: 10.2144/000112582. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Demetrick DJ, Hay RW, Waghray R. DNA “Fingerprint” evaluation of clinical specimen contamination: Application to cytopathology. Pathology Case Reviews. 2006;11:98–102. doi: 10.1097/01.pcr.0000204643.18546.d8. - DOI
    1. Popiolek DA, Prinz M, West AB, Nazzaruolo BL, Estacio SM, Budimlija ZM. Multiplex DNA short tandem repeat analysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:746–51. doi: 10.1309/MGW2XKFT0NYQCUHW. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: A college of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 1004115 cases from 417 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:227–33. - PubMed
    1. Junge A, Dettmeyer R, Madea B. Identification of biological samples in a case of contamination of a cytological slide preparation. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53:739–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00724.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types