Immunocytochemistry using liquid-based cytology: A tool in hormone receptor analysis of breast cancer

Tripathy, Kalpalata; Mishra, Archana; Singh, Ajit Kumar; Panda, Pragnya L; Mahapatra, Arup; Lenka, A. Vodstrcil

doi:10.4103/joc.joc_23_18

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25,26 Therefore, laboratories have developed and published various strategies for preparing slides for ICC and fulfilling demands for advanced diagnosis on scanty cytology samples. 7,9,11,13,[27][28][29] The actual variability in cytology sample preparation for ICC, and especially the application of QA/QC measures for assuring accurate and reliable ICC results are still largely unknown. The first inquiry conducted by the European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) a decade ago revealed diversity in some aspects of ICC practices in 28 laboratories from 13 European countries.…”

Section: Cancer Cytopathology October 2020mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immunocytochemistry practices in European cytopathology laboratories—Review of European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) online survey results with best practice recommendations

Kirbiš

Roque

Bongiovanni³

et al. 2020

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Variability in preanalytical and analytical steps for immunocytochemistry (ICC) on cytology samples is poorly defined. The objective of this study was to evaluate current practices for ICC on cytology samples in European laboratories. METHODS: A link to an online survey with 19 questions about ICC practices was distributed to cytology laboratories through national representatives in the European Federation of Cytology Societies. RESULTS: In total, 245 laboratories responded to the survey by January 30, 2019. Cell blocks, cytospins, liquid-based cytology (LBC) preparations, and smears alone or in combination with other preparations were used for ICC in 38%, 22%, 21%, and 19% of laboratories, respectively. In general, various combinations of preparations were used for ICC in greater than one-half of laboratories (147 of 245; 60%), whereas only 1 specific type of cytology preparation was used in the remaining 98 of 245 laboratories (40%) laboratories. The majority of laboratories (217 of 226; 96%) performed ICC on automated platforms using protocols that were the same as those used for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples (238 of 527 laboratories; 45%), either optimized (138 of 527 laboratories; 26%) or optimized and validated (151 of 527 laboratories; 29%) for cytology preparations. Positive control slides, negative control slides, and external quality control were used in 174 of 223 (78%), 112 of 223 (50%), and 111 of 120 (50%) laboratories, respectively. Greater than 1000 ICC tests were performed yearly in 34% of laboratories (65 of 191; average, 1477 tests; median, 500 tests). CONCLUSIONS: ICC is extensively performed in European laboratories using variously prepared cytology preparations on automated platforms, mostly without quality-assurance measures.

show abstract

Section: Cancer Cytopathology October 2020mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, achieving adequate and optimal cell blocks from cytology samples can be challenging and time consuming 25,26 . Therefore, laboratories have developed and published various strategies for preparing slides for ICC and fulfilling demands for advanced diagnosis on scanty cytology samples 7,9,11,13,27‐29 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunocytochemistry practices in European cytopathology laboratories—Review of European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) online survey results with best practice recommendations

Kirbiš

Roque

Bongiovanni³

et al. 2020

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Immunoreactivity varies depending on storage solution and storage time in ICC [6], and the components of LBC fixing solutions may affect immunoreactivity. Recently, several studies on ICC using LBC-fixed specimens have been reported [1,[7][8][9][10][11], and the differences between LBCfixed specimens and FFPE-CB specimens have been clarified. However, several staining conditions, such as antigen retrieval and antibody reactivity, differ between cytologic and CB specimens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunocytochemical Reactivity Comparison between Formalin-Fixed and Liquid-Based Cytology-Fixed Specimens

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Liquid-based cytology (LBC)-fixed samples can be used for preparing multiple specimens of the same quality and for immunocytochemistry (ICC); however, LBC fixing solutions affect immunoreactivity. Therefore, in this study, we examined the effect of LBC fixing solutions on immunoreactivity. Methods: Samples were cell lines, and specimens were prepared from cell blocks of 10% neutral buffered formalin (NBF)-fixed samples and the four types of LBC-fixed samples: PreservCyt®, CytoRich™ Red, CytoRich™ Blue, and TACAS™ Ruby, which were post-fixed with NBF. ICC was performed using 24 different antibodies, and immunocytochemically stained specimens were analyzed for the percentage of positive cells. Results: Immunoreactivity differed according to the type of antigen detected. For nuclear antigens, the highest percentage of positive cells of Ki-67, WT-1, ER, and p63 was observed in the NBF-fixed samples, and the highest percentage of positive cells of p53, TTF-1, and PgR was observed in the TACAS™ Ruby samples. For cytoplasmic antigens, the percentage of positive cells of CK5/6, Vimentin, and IMP3 in LBC-fixed samples was higher than or similar to that in NBF-fixed samples. The percentage of positive cells of CEA was significantly lower in CytoRich™ Red and CytoRich™ Blue samples than in the NBF-fixed sample (p < 0.01). Among the cell membrane antigens, the percentage of positive cells of Ber-EP4, CD10, and D2-40 was the highest in NBF-fixed samples and significantly lower in CytoRich™ Red and CytoRich™ Blue samples than that in NBF-fixed samples (p < 0.01). The NBF-fixed and LBC-fixed samples showed no significant differences in the percentage of positive cells of CA125 and EMA. Discussion/Conclusion: ICC using LBC-fixed samples showed the same immunoreactivity as NBF-fixed samples when performed on cell block specimens post-fixed with NBF. The percentage of positive cells increased or decreased based on the type of fixing solution depending on the amount of antigen in the cells. Further, the detection rate of ICC with LBC-fixed samples varied according to the type of antibody and the amount of antigen in the cells. Therefore, we propose that ICC using LBC-fixed samples, including detection methods, should be carefully performed.

show abstract

“…Slightly lower values were reported using the Liquiprep TM system combined with antigen retrieval done using proteolytic enzyme digestion, a heat-mediated method, or a mixture of both. In this particular series of 45 cases, the authors report on a concordance with a tissue of 84% for ER, 91% for PR, and 76% for HER2 [102]. Two other studies, one with no antigen retrieval and another where it is not mentioned, did not show significant differences between cytology and tissue samples [103, 104].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Immunohistochemistry Applied to Breast Cytological Material

Pinto

Schmitt

2022

Pathobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs) of the breast are minimally invasive procedures enabling the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Unfortunately, they are often perceived as inferior to core-needle biopsies, namely because they are supposedly unable to differentiate between high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma or provide material for ancillary testing. Several studies have shown, however, that FNAB samples, when handled properly, are indeed capable of providing sufficient and adequate material for ancillary testing, namely immunocytochemistry (ICC). We reviewed the published literature regarding the use of ICC for both diagnostic and theranostic uses in the different types of cytological samples obtained from FNABs of the breast, including smears, liquid-based cytology samples, and cellblocks. We found that p63 and 34βE12 show promise in aiding in the differential diagnosis between in situ and invasive lesions and that most other diagnostic markers may be used as in tissue. Regarding theranostic ICC markers, results vary between publications, but with care, these can successfully be performed in cytological samples. Air-dried smears should be avoided, and cellblocks are overall more versatile than cytology slides, enabling the evaluation of not only hormonal receptors and HER2 by ICC, but also of Ki-67. Particular attention should be paid to fixation and antigen retrieval procedures in all cases. We recommend that laboratories without experience perform short validation runs before adopting these techniques into clinical practice.

show abstract

Immunocytochemistry using liquid-based cytology: A tool in hormone receptor analysis of breast cancer

Cited by 16 publications

References 13 publications

Immunocytochemistry practices in European cytopathology laboratories—Review of European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) online survey results with best practice recommendations

Immunocytochemistry practices in European cytopathology laboratories—Review of European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) online survey results with best practice recommendations

Immunocytochemical Reactivity Comparison between Formalin-Fixed and Liquid-Based Cytology-Fixed Specimens

Immunohistochemistry Applied to Breast Cytological Material

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About