Cell blocks in veterinary medicine: A comparison of two methods (cell tube and agar) in 52 effusions from dogs and cats.
Bio-Agar
HistoGel
immunohistochemistry
pan-cytokeratin
vimentin
Journal
Veterinary clinical pathology
ISSN: 1939-165X
Titre abrégé: Vet Clin Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9880575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
21
09
2019
revised:
10
04
2020
accepted:
11
05
2020
pubmed:
19
12
2020
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
18
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cell blocks are alternative preparations of fluid cytological specimens. They can be used for immunochemical studies as complementary tools or when other techniques (eg, immunocytochemistry, flow cytometry) are not available. We aimed to provide comparative morphologic, immunohistochemical, and technical features of agar-based cell blocks (ACBs) and cell tube blocks (CTBs) from cavitary effusions. Agar-based cell blocks and CTBs were obtained from canine and feline effusions with neoplastic/atypical cells or with packed cell volumes ≥3%. Cellularity, RBC separation, and cellular features were evaluated on digitalized H&E slides with evaluators blinded to the method. The immunohistochemical intensity and nonspecific background were assessed on pan-cytokeratin and vimentin-stained slides. Overall yield was calculated, and morphologic and immunohistochemical features were compared among paired samples. Technical and cellular features were also described. Agar-based cell blocks and CTBs yielded evaluable sections in 100% (52/52) and 98% (51/52) of the cases, respectively. Cellularity and RBC separation scores were significantly higher in CTBs. Similar staining intensities were observed, and background staining was more frequently seen in pan-cytokeratin-stained ACBs. Only basic materials and equipment were required for both methods. Agar-based cell block preparations were more operator dependent and difficult to standardize, whereas CTBs were easier to prepare, but laboratory processing was more demanding. Both methods can be used to produce good sections for immunohistochemistry staining with no significant differences. Cell tube blocks are beneficial for RBC-rich samples, and little additional training is required to prepare the blocks. Both types of cell blocks are reliable, cost-effective methods that could be introduced in diagnostic laboratories to further characterize canine and feline effusions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cell blocks are alternative preparations of fluid cytological specimens. They can be used for immunochemical studies as complementary tools or when other techniques (eg, immunocytochemistry, flow cytometry) are not available.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to provide comparative morphologic, immunohistochemical, and technical features of agar-based cell blocks (ACBs) and cell tube blocks (CTBs) from cavitary effusions.
METHODS
METHODS
Agar-based cell blocks and CTBs were obtained from canine and feline effusions with neoplastic/atypical cells or with packed cell volumes ≥3%. Cellularity, RBC separation, and cellular features were evaluated on digitalized H&E slides with evaluators blinded to the method. The immunohistochemical intensity and nonspecific background were assessed on pan-cytokeratin and vimentin-stained slides. Overall yield was calculated, and morphologic and immunohistochemical features were compared among paired samples. Technical and cellular features were also described.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Agar-based cell blocks and CTBs yielded evaluable sections in 100% (52/52) and 98% (51/52) of the cases, respectively. Cellularity and RBC separation scores were significantly higher in CTBs. Similar staining intensities were observed, and background staining was more frequently seen in pan-cytokeratin-stained ACBs. Only basic materials and equipment were required for both methods. Agar-based cell block preparations were more operator dependent and difficult to standardize, whereas CTBs were easier to prepare, but laboratory processing was more demanding.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both methods can be used to produce good sections for immunohistochemistry staining with no significant differences. Cell tube blocks are beneficial for RBC-rich samples, and little additional training is required to prepare the blocks. Both types of cell blocks are reliable, cost-effective methods that could be introduced in diagnostic laboratories to further characterize canine and feline effusions.
Substances chimiques
Agar
9002-18-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
632-639Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology.
Références
Dempsey SM, Ewing PJ. A review of the pathophysiology, classification, and analysis of canine and feline cavitary effusions. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2011;47:1-11.
Hirschberger J, DeNicola DB, Hermanns W, Kraft W. Sensitivity and specificity of cytologic evaluation in the diagnosis of neoplasia in body fluids from dogs and cats. Vet Clin Pathol. 1999;28:142-146.
Cagle LA, Epstein SE, Owens SD, Mellema MS, Hopper K, Burton AG. Diagnostic yield of cytologic analysis of pericardial effusion in dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2014;28:66-71.
Przeździecki R, Sapierzyński R. Using of immunocytochemistry in differential diagnosis of neoplasms of serosal cavities in dogs. Pol J Vet Sci. 2014;17:149-159.
Sawa M, Inoue M, Yabuki A, et al. Rapid immunocytochemistry for the detection of cytokeratin and vimentin: assessment of its diagnostic value in neoplastic diseases of dogs. Vet Clin Pathol. 2017;46:172-178.
Dörfelt S, Matiasek LA, Felten S, Sangl L, Hartmann K, Matiasek K. Antigens under cover-the preservation and demasking of selected antigens for successful poststaining immunocytochemistry of effusion, brain smears, and lymph node aspirates. Vet Clin Pathol. 2019;48(S1):98-107.
Barger A, Raskin R, Flatland B, Friedrichs K, Walton R, Camus M. ASVCP Quality Assurance Guidelines: Veterinary Immunocytochemistry (ICC). Ed. 2017. http://www.asvcp.org/resource/resmgr/qals/qals_icc_guidelines_11.2017.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2019
Priest HL, Hume KR, Killick D, et al. The use, publication and future directions of immunocytochemistry in veterinary medicine: a consensus of the Oncology-Pathology Working Group. Vet Comp Oncol. 2017;15:868-880.
Jain D, Mathur SR, Iyer VK. Cell blocks in cytopathology: a review of preparative methods, utility in diagnosis and role in ancillary studies. Cytopathology. 2014;25:356-371.
Nambirajan A, Jain D. Cell blocks in cytopathology: an update. Cytopathology. 2018;29:505-524.
Fetsch PA, Simsir A, Brosky K, Abati A. Comparison of three commonly used cytologic preparations in effusion immunocytochemistry. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:61-66.
Saqi A. The state of cell blocks and ancillary testing past, present, and future. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140:1318-1322.
Shidham VB. Cell Blockistry: Chemistry and art of cell-block making-a detailed review of various historical options with recent advances. Cytojournal. 2019;16:12.
Marcos R, Santos M, Marrinhas C, Caniatti M, Marcos CR. Cell tube block: a new technique to produce cell blocks from fluid cytology samples. Vet Clin Pathol. 2017;46:195-201.
Fontes Pinto F, Lopes C, Malhão F, Marcos R. Unraveling avian and reptilian hematology: an optical and electron microscopic study of the buffy coat. Vet Clin Pathol. 2018;47:407-414.
Marcos R, Canadas A, Leite-Martins L, et al. What is your diagnosis? Cutaneous nodules and atypical blood cells in a dog. Vet Clin Pathol. 2018;47:317-319.
Taylor BE, Leibman NF, Luong R, Loar AS, Craft DM. Detection of carcinoma micrometastases in bone marrow of dogs and cats using conventional and cell block cytology. Vet Clin Pathol. 2013;42:85-91.
Menezes RC, Madeira MF, Ferreira LC, Barbosa Filho CJL, Miranda LHM, Figueiredo FB. Cell-block immunohistochemistry of bone marrow aspirates: a novel tool to improve the diagnosis of leishmania infection in dogs. J Comp Pathol. 2016;154:157-160.
Wallace KA, Goldschmidt MH, Patel RT. Converting fluid-based cytologic specimens to histologic specimens for immunohistochemistry. Vet Clin Pathol. 2015;44:303-309.
Marcos R, Marrinhas C, Malhão F, Canadas A, Santos M, Caniatti M. The cell tube block technique and an immunohistochemistry panel including Wilms tumor 1 to assist in diagnosing cavitary effusions in dogs and cats. Vet Clin Pathol. 2019;48:50-60.
Joiner KS, Spangler EA. Evaluation of HistoGelTM-embedded specimens for use in veterinary diagnostic pathology. J Vet Diagnostic Investig. 2012;24:710-715.
Zanoni DS, Grandi F, Rocha NS. Use of the agarose cell block technique in veterinary diagnostic cytopathology: an “old and forgotten” method. Vet Clin Pathol. 2012;41:307-308.
Marcos R. Cell tube: a new technique for making cell blocks from needle rinses. Vet Clin Pathol. 2013;42:401-402.
Fernandes NCA, Guerra JM, Réssio RA, et al. Liquid-based cytology and cell block immunocytochemistry in veterinary medicine: comparison with standard cytology for the evaluation of canine lymphoid samples. Vet Comp Oncol. 2016;14:107-116.
Heinrich DA, Avery AC, Henson MS, et al. Cytology and the cell block method in diagnostic characterization of canine lymphadenopathy and in the immunophenotyping of nodal lymphoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2019;17:365-375.
Haysom LZ, Lee-Fowler TM, Spangler EA. Evaluation of Histogel- and Gelfoam-embedded bronchoalveolar lavage and transtracheal wash fluids compared with cytocentrifuged and sediment smear preparations. Vet Clin Pathol. 2018;47:471-476.
Crapanzano JP, Heymann JJ, Monaco S, Nassar A, Saqi A. The state of cell block variation and satisfaction in the era of molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine. Cytojournal. 2014;11:7.
Rolls GO, Farmer NJ, Hall JB. Artifacts in the Histological and Cytological Preparations. Leica Microsystem Education System. Melbourne, Australia: Leica Microsystems. 2010;84-85.
Jing X, Li QK, Bedrossian U, Michael CW. Morphologic and immunocytochemical performances of effusion cell blocks prepared using 3 different methods. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;139:177-182.