Immunocytochemistry in lung fine needle aspiration cytology: comparison of four protocols
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25758/set.488Keywords:
Immunocytochemistry, May-Grϋnwald Giemsa, Polyethyleneglycol, Papanicolaou, Sample processingAbstract
Background – Long-term preservation of fine-needle aspiration cytology slides is an essential requirement in cytopathology laboratories for the eventual performance of immunocytochemistry. ICQ contributes to a correct and complete diagnosis, considering that long-term morphological and antigenic preservation is essential to obtain reliable results. In this study, we intend to evaluate and compare the immunoexpression of TTF1, p40, and chromogranin A antigens in lung samples taken from the archive and stained with: i) Papanicolaou (Pap); ii) May-Grünwald Giemsa (MGG); iii) preserved in polyethylene glycol (PEG); and iv) processed as cell-block. Methods – Twenty-four fine needle aspiration cytology samples diagnosed as primary lung carcinoma with a sample processed by each of the protocols studied (Pap, MGG, PEG, and CB) were selected from the archive. Based on the diagnosis, immunostaining was performed with primary antibodies anti-TTF1 (adenocarcinomas), anti-p40 (squamous cell carcinomas), and anti-chromogranin A (neuroendocrine carcinomas). The quality of immunostaining was evaluated by two independent observers using an evaluation grid (rated from 0 to 27 points) that comprises parameters as: morphological preservation, specific staining intensity, sensitivity, specificity, and contrast. Results – The mean values obtained for CB, PEG, Pap, and MGG protocols were 21.58 (±4.54), 11.79 (±1.88), 22.25 (±5.30), 26.31 (±1.21) points respectively. CB achieved better results when compared to other protocols under study (p<0.05). When compared in pairs (Tuckey post-hoc) the only protocols that did not show statistically significant differences were Pap and PEG (p=0.0814). Conclusions – Cell-block is the elected protocol to perform ICQ for the samples and antigens under study. The Pap and PEG protocols showed loss of immunostaining, which could lead to false-negative results. Immunostaining was not observed in any sample with MGG protocol.
Downloads
References
Beraki E, Olsen TK, Sauer T. Establishing a protocol for immunocytochemichal staining and chromogenic in situ hybridization of Giemsa and Diff-Quick prestained cytological smears. Cytojournal. 2012;9(8).
Schmitt F, Cochand-Priollet B, Toetsch M, Davidson B, Bondi A, Vielh P. Immunocytochemistry in Europe: results of the European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) inquiry. Cytopathology. 2011;22(4):238-42.
Koss LG, Melamed MR. Epithelial lesions of the oral cavity, larynx, trachea, nasopharynx, and paranasal sinuses. In: Koss’ diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases (Vol. I). 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 714-37. ISBN 9780781719285
Flens MJ, van der Valk P, Tadema TM, Huysmans AC, Risse EK, van Tol GA, et al. The contribution of immunocytochemistry in diagnostic cytology: comparison and evaluation with immunohistology. Cancer. 1990;65(12):2704-11.
Fowler LJ, Lachar WA. Application of immunohistochemistry to cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(3):373-83.
Pinheiro C, Roque R, Adriano A, Mendes P, Praça M, Reis I, et al. Optimization of immunocytochemistry in cytology: comparison of two protocols for fixation and preservation on cytospin and smear preparations. Cytopathology. 2015;26(1):38-43.
Kirbis IS, Maxwell P, Fležar MS, Miller K, Ibrahim M. External quality control for immunocytochemistry on cytology samples: a review of UK NEQAS ICC (cytology module) results. Cytopathology. 2011;22(4):230-7.
Skoog L, Tani E. Immunocytochemistry: an indispensable technique in routine cytology. Cytopathology. 2011;22(4):215-29.
Maxwell P, Salto-Tellez M. Validation of immunocytochemistry as a morphomolecular technique. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(8):540-5.
Maxwell P, Patterson AH, Jamison J, Miller K, Anderson N. Use of alcohol fixed cytospins protected by 10% polyethylene glycol in immunocytology external quality assurance. J Clin Pathol. 1999;52(2):141-4.
Hudock JA, Hanau CA, Christen R, Bibbo M. Expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in cytologic specimens using various fixatives. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;15(1):78-83.
Krishnamurthy S, Dimashkieh H, Patel S, Sneige N. Immunocytochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor on archival Papanicolaou-stained fine-needle aspirate smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29(6):309-14.
Hammar S, Dacic S. Immunohistology of lung and pleural neoplasms. In: Dabbs DJ, editor. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry: theranostic and genomic applications. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. p. 286-478. ISBN 9781455744619
French C. Respiratory tract and mediastinum. In: Cibas ES, Ducatman BS, editors. Cytology: diagnostic principles and clinical correlates. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2014. p. 59-104. ISBN 9781455744626
Ferro AB. Immunohistochemistry results assessment: a scale based semiquantitative approach - The Global Immunohistochemistry Score (GIS). In: Delić K, editor. An essential guide to immunohistochemistry: cell biology research progress. Nova Science Publishers; 2019. p. 47-71.
Marôco J. Análise estatística com o SPSS statistics. 6ª ed. Pêro Pinheiro: Report Number; 2014. ISBN 9789899676343
DeLellis RA, Hoda RS. Immunochemistry and molecular biology in cytological diagnosis. In: Koss LG, Melamed MR, editors. Koss' diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases (Vol. II). 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 1635-73. ISBN 9780781719285
Kirbis IS, Praça MJ, Roque RR, Košuta T, André S, Flezar MS. Preservation of biomarkers immunoreactivity on cytospins protected with polyethylene glycol. Cytopathology. 2020;32(1):84-91.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The journal Saúde & Tecnologia offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge available to the public free of charge provides greater worldwide democratization of knowledge.
The journal Saúde & Tecnologia does not charge authors any submission or article processing charges (APC).
All content is licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license. Authors have the right to: reproduce their work in physical or digital form for personal, professional, or teaching use, but not for commercial use (including the sale of the right to access the article); deposit on their website, that of their institution or in a repository an exact copy in electronic format of the article published by Saúde & Tecnologia, provided that reference is made to its publication in Saúde & Tecnologia and its content (including symbols identifying the journal) is not altered; publish in a book of which they are authors or editors the total or partial content of the manuscript, provided that reference is made to its publication in Saúde & Tecnologia.
