Cell block practices in European cytopathology laboratories.
cell blocks
cytopathology
immunocytochemistry
molecular cytology
quality
Journal
Cancer cytopathology
ISSN: 1934-6638
Titre abrégé: Cancer Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Feb 2024
07 Feb 2024
Historique:
revised:
16
12
2023
received:
09
10
2023
accepted:
20
12
2023
medline:
7
2
2024
pubmed:
7
2
2024
entrez:
7
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There are numerous methods and procedures described for the preparation of cell blocks (CBs) from cytological samples. The objective of this study was to determine current practices and issues with CBs in European laboratories. A link to an online survey, with 11 questions about CB practices, was distributed to cytology laboratories via participants of United Kingdom National External Quality Assurance Service for Cellular Pathology Techniques and national representatives in the European Federation of Cytology Societies. A total of 402 laboratories responded completely (337/402, 84%) or partially (65/402, 16%) to the survey by February 4, 2022. The most common CB practice is embedding cell pellets using plasma and thrombin (23.3%), agar (17.1%), Shandon/Epredia Cytoblock (11.4%), HistoGel (7.9%), and Cellient (3.5%). Other methods such as CytoFoam, albumin, gelatin, Cytomatrix, and collodion bags are rarely used (1.0%, 0.7%, 0.7%, 0.3%, and 0.2%, respectively). CBs are also prepared from naturally occurring clots or tissue fragments (29.5%) and cells scraped from unstained or prestained smears (4.4%). The most frequent issues with the CBs in a daily cytology practice are low cellularity (248/402, 62%) and dispersed cells (89/402, 22%), regardless of the CBs preparation method or how the samples for embedding were selected. There is a great variability in CB practices in European laboratories with low cellular CBs as the main issue. Additional studies are mandatory to evaluate and improve performance and cellular yield of CBs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are numerous methods and procedures described for the preparation of cell blocks (CBs) from cytological samples. The objective of this study was to determine current practices and issues with CBs in European laboratories.
METHODS
METHODS
A link to an online survey, with 11 questions about CB practices, was distributed to cytology laboratories via participants of United Kingdom National External Quality Assurance Service for Cellular Pathology Techniques and national representatives in the European Federation of Cytology Societies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 402 laboratories responded completely (337/402, 84%) or partially (65/402, 16%) to the survey by February 4, 2022. The most common CB practice is embedding cell pellets using plasma and thrombin (23.3%), agar (17.1%), Shandon/Epredia Cytoblock (11.4%), HistoGel (7.9%), and Cellient (3.5%). Other methods such as CytoFoam, albumin, gelatin, Cytomatrix, and collodion bags are rarely used (1.0%, 0.7%, 0.7%, 0.3%, and 0.2%, respectively). CBs are also prepared from naturally occurring clots or tissue fragments (29.5%) and cells scraped from unstained or prestained smears (4.4%). The most frequent issues with the CBs in a daily cytology practice are low cellularity (248/402, 62%) and dispersed cells (89/402, 22%), regardless of the CBs preparation method or how the samples for embedding were selected.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is a great variability in CB practices in European laboratories with low cellular CBs as the main issue. Additional studies are mandatory to evaluate and improve performance and cellular yield of CBs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Cytopathology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.
Références
Nambirajan A, Jain D. Cell blocks in cytopathology: an update. Cytopathology. 2018;29(6):505-524. doi:10.1111/cyt.12627
Krogerus L, Kholová I. Cell block in cytological diagnostics: review of preparatory techniques. Acta Cytol. 2018;62(4):237-243. doi:10.1159/000489769
Torous VF, Cuda JM, Manucha V, Randolph ML, Shi Q, VandenBussche CJ. Cell blocks in cytology: review of preparation methods, advantages, and limitations. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2023;12(2):77-88. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2022.11.003
Shidham VB. CellBlockistry: chemistry and art of cell-block making - a detailed review of various historical options with recent advances. CytoJournal. 2019;16:12. doi:10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_20_19
Harada S, Agosto-Arroyo E, Levesque JA, et al. Poor cell block adequacy rate for molecular testing improved with the addition of Diff-Quik-stained smears: need for better cell block processing. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123(8):480-487. doi:10.1002/cncy.21561
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. doi:10.4103/1742-6413.129187
Henwood AF, Charlton A. Extraneous epithelial cells from thromboplastin in cell blocks. Cytopathology. 2014;25(6):412-413. doi:10.1111/cyt.12129
Birge RF, Mc MT, Davis SK. A rapid method for paraffin section study of exfoliated neoplastic cells in bodily fluids. Am J Clin Pathol. 1948;18(9):754. doi:10.1093/ajcp/18.9_ts.754
Newman M, Walsh M, Jeffrey R, Hiscock R. Cell block optimization: a comparative study of quality variables in 4 different cell block methods. Acta Cytol. 2021;65(5):417-423. doi:10.1159/000516384
Gilroy L, Walsh K, Oniscu A. Do we know what is in our samples? J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(12):e122. doi:10.1097/jto.0000000000000684
Sung S, Sireci AN, Remotti HE, et al. Plasma-thrombin cell blocks: potential source of DNA contamination. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127(12):771-777. doi:10.1002/cncy.22203
Abram M, Huhtamella R, Kalfert D, Hakso-Mäkinen H, Ludvíková M, Kholová I. The role of cell blocks and immunohistochemistry in thyroid atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance Bethesda Category. Acta Cytol. 2021;65(3):257-263. doi:10.1159/000514906
Tommola E, Kalfert D, Hakso-Mäkinen H, Kholová I. The contributory role of cell blocks in salivary gland neoplasms fine needle aspirations classified by the milan system for reporting salivary gland cytology. Diagnostics. 2021;11(10):1778. doi:10.3390/diagnostics11101778
Sauter JL, Grogg KL, Vrana JA, Law ME, Halvorson JL, Henry MR. Young investigator challenge: validation and optimization of immunohistochemistry protocols for use on Cellient cell block specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(2):89-100. doi:10.1002/cncy.21660
Prendeville S, Brosnan T, Browne TJ, McCarthy J. Automated Cellient Cytoblocks: better, stronger, faster? Cytopathology. 2014;25(6):372-380. doi:10.1111/cyt.12159
Montgomery E, Gao C, de Luca J, Bower J, Attwood K, Ylagan L. Validation of 31 of the most commonly used immunohistochemical antibodies in cytology prepared using the Cellient((R)) automated cell block system. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42(12):1024-1033. doi:10.1002/dc.23155
Fitzgibbons PL, Bradley LA, Fatheree LA, 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):1432-1443. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0610-cp
Mayall FG, Bodger I, Pepperell J, Stevanato L, Hustler A, Mumford KM. The precious cell block. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71(7):659-660. doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205151
Mayall FG, Pepperell J, Bodger I, et al. Cytology and cell-block immunohistochemistry of circulating tumour cells. Cytopathology. 2019;30(6):620-627. doi:10.1111/cyt.12770
Taccogna S, Papini E, Novizio R, et al. An innovative synthetic support for immunocytochemical assessment of cytologically indeterminate (Bethesda III) thyroid nodules. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13. doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.1078019
Montella M, Cozzolino I, Zito Marino F, et al. Application of CytoMatrix for the diagnosis of melanoma metastases on FNA cytology samples: performance of a novel cell block method. Cancer Cytopathol. 2023;131(8):516-525. doi:10.1002/cncy.22707
Bruschini S, di Martino S, Pisanu ME, et al. CytoMatrix for a reliable and simple characterization of lung cancer stem cells from malignant pleural effusions. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235(3):1877-1887. doi:10.1002/jcp.29121
Jhun I, Levy D, Lim H, et al. Implementation of collodion bag protocol to improve whole-slide imaging of scant gynecologic curettage specimens. J Pathol Inf. 2021;12(1):2. doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_82_20
Wilgenbusch H, Molm C, Aslan D, Berg B. It is all in the bag: collodion bag versus HistoGel cell block method. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;9(1):20-25. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2019.06.003
Harabajsa S, Milutin L, Breški A, et al. Quality of cell blocks prepared from residual pleural effusion and bronchial washing samples for immunocytochemistry. Cytopathology. 2023;34(3):264-270. doi:10.1111/cyt.13228
Srebotnik Kirbiš I, Strojan Fležar M. Cell count-based triaging of cytology samples for cell block preparation. Cytopathology. 2016;28(3):216-220. doi:10.1111/cyt.12404
International Organization of Standardization. Medical laboratories-requirements for quality and competence. ISO; 2022. ISO Guide 15189.2022.
Lubbers BR, Schilhabel A, Cobbaert CM, et al. The new EU regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices: implications and preparatory actions for diagnostic laboratories. Hemasphere. 2021;5(5):e568. doi:10.1097/hs9.0000000000000568