Objectives: Although diffuse alveolar damage, a subtype of acute lung injury (ALI), is the most common microscopic pattern in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), other pathologic patterns have been described. The aim of the study was to review autopsies from COVID-19 decedents to evaluate the spectrum of pathology and correlate the results with clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings.Methods: A comprehensive and quantitative review from 40 postmortem examinations was performed. The microscopic patterns were categorized as follows: “major” when present in more than 50% of cases and “novel” if rarely or not previously described and unexpected clinically.Results: Three major pulmonary patterns were identified: ALI in 29 (73%) of 40, intravascular fibrin or platelet-rich aggregates (IFPAs) in 36 (90%) of 40, and vascular congestion and hemangiomatosis-like change (VCHL) in 20 (50%) of 40. The absence of ALI (non-ALI) was novel and seen in 11 (27%) of 40. Compared with ALI decedents, those with non-ALI had a shorter hospitalization course (P = .02), chest radiographs with no or minimal consolidation (P = .01), and no pathologically confirmed cause of death (9/11). All non-ALI had VCHL and IFPAs, and clinically most had cardiac arrest.Conclusions: Two distinct pulmonary phenotypic patterns—ALI and non-ALI—were noted. Non-ALI represents a rarely described phenotype. The cause of death in non-ALI is most likely COVID-19 related but requires additional corroboration.

Background: In the recent past, algorithms and recommendations to standardize the morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular classification of lung cancers on cytology specimens have been proposed, and several organizations have recommended cell blocks (CBs) as the preferred modality for molecular testing. Based on the literature, there are several different techniques available for CB preparation-suggesting that there is no standard. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of CB preparation techniques utilized in various practice settings and analyze current issues, if any.Materials and Methods: A single E-mail with a link to an electronic survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Cytopathology and other pathologists. Questions pertaining to the participants’ practice setting and CBs-volume, method, quality and satisfaction-were included.Results: Of 95 respondents, 90/95 (94%) completed the survey and comprise the study group. Most participants practice in a community hospital/private practice (44%) or academic center (41%). On average, 14 CBs (range 0-50; median 10) are prepared by a laboratory daily. Over 10 methods are utilized: Plasma thrombin (33%), HistoGel (27%), Cellient automated cell block system (8%) and others (31%) respectively. Forty of 90 (44%) respondents are either unsatisfied or sometimes satisfied with their CB quality, with low-cellular yield being the leading cause of dissatisfaction. There was no statistical significance between the three most common CB preparation methods and satisfaction with quality.Discussion: Many are dissatisfied with their current method of CB preparation, and there is no consistent method to prepare CBs. In today's era of personalized medicine with an increasing array of molecular tests being applied to cytological specimens, there is a need for a standardized protocol for CB optimization to enhance cellularity.

Cell blocks are an integral part of cytology, but their utility is recognized probably more now than ever before, largely owing to the significant role they play in ancillary testing, particularly molecular diagnostics. Modifications to improve the cell block method initially introduced more than a century ago have been made over the years. Though their value is acknowledged and they are widely used across laboratories, cell block preparations are not standardized and results of ancillary testing performed on them are inconsistent. This article reviews the state of cell blocks—summarizes the more common, currently available and used methods and their corresponding advantages and shortcomings, outlines the role of alternative techniques (eg, smears), and proposes methods to optimize results.