What is your diagnosis? Cutaneous nodules and atypical blood cells in a dog

Self Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling avian and reptilian hematology: An optical and electron microscopic study of the buffy coat

Pinto¹,

Lopes

Malhão

et al. 2018

Self Cite

“…In the past few years, cell blocks have been increasingly used in veterinary cytology, particularly for IHC studies on several biologic matrices 14‐26 . Short protocols with low costs and minimal influences on laboratory workflow are the key reasons to introduce cell block technology for routine practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has also been increasing interest in minimally invasive procedures and ancillary testing in diagnostic cytology. Cell blocks have been obtained from matrices, such as peripheral blood, 14‐16 cerebrospinal fluid, 14 synovial fluid, 14 bone marrow, 17,18 effusions, 19,20 urine, 14,21 fine‐needle aspiration rinses, 14,22‐25 and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids 14,26 . All described methods involve two distinct phases: preparation and processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell blocks in veterinary medicine: A comparison of two methods (cell tube and agar) in 52 effusions from dogs and cats

Melega

Santos

Caniatti

et al. 2020

Self Cite

BackgroundCell 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.ObjectivesWe aimed to provide comparative morphologic, immunohistochemical, and technical features of agar‐based cell blocks (ACBs) and cell tube blocks (CTBs) from cavitary effusions.MethodsAgar‐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.ResultsAgar‐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.ConclusionsBoth 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.

“…In fact, definitive diagnoses of nodal and gastrointestinal lymphomas, mesenchymal gastrointestinal tumors, mesotheliomas, and carcinomas have already been achieved, 9,11,12,14 but there are very few reports of its applicability in the diagnosis of canine MM. 15 The objective of this work is to present three cases where the preparation of cell blocks using HistoGel is followed by immunohistochemical analysis for the diagnosis of MM in dogs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple myeloma in dogs: Use of the cell block technique as a new diagnostic tool

Valente,

Peleteiro,

Dias

et al. 2024

BackgroundThe diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM) in dogs may be challenging and complex. The cell blocks are a diagnostic technique that allows the characterization of neoplastic cells and, therefore, might help in the diagnosis of atypical MM.ObjectiveThe objective of the present work is to describe three clinical cases in which the cell blocks and immunohistochemistry contributed to the definitive diagnosis of canine MM.MethodsThree dogs, one female and two males, with different clinical signs, were presented for consultation with anemia, hyperproteinemia with monoclonal gammopathy, and the presence of plasmacytosis in the bone marrow. Cytologic analysis of the spleen was performed in two dogs and was suggestive of the presence of lymphocytes or plasma cells of a neoplastic nature in one of the cases and plasma cell hyperplasia associated with extramedullary hematopoiesis in the other. Given the hypotheses of lymphoid neoplasms with a plasma cell phenotype, cell blocks from aspiration punctures were performed for immunohistochemical analysis with anti‐CD3, CD20, CD79αcy, PAX5, and MUM1 antibodies.ResultsThe results revealed positive staining for MUM1 in 80% of the cells in the spleen cell block and for CD20 and MUM1 in 70% of the cells in the bone marrow cell blocks, with negative staining for the other antibodies. The immunophenotyping results allowed the diagnosis of MM in the three cases and excluded other lymphoid neoplasms.ConclusionsThis work reinforces the importance of using cell blocks in the diagnosis of neoplasms by demonstrating their potential to aid the diagnosis of MM.