Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: April 20, 2022
Accepted: July 14, 2022
Published online: October 13, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY

Abstract

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.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References Gong Y, Sun X, Michael CW, Attal S, Williamson BA, Bedrossian CWM. Immunocytochemistry of serous effusion specimens: a comparison of ThinPrep® vs. cell block. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003 Jan;28(1):1–5. Ikeda K, Tate G, Suzuki T, Kitamura T, Mitsuya T. Diagnostic usefulness of EMA, IMP3, and GLUT-1 for the immunocytochemical distinction of malignant cells from reactive mesothelial cells in effusion cytology using cytospin preparations. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Jun;39(6):395–401. Ikeda K, Oboshi W, Hashimoto Y, Komene T, Yamaguchi Y, Sato S, et al. Characterizing the effect of processing technique and solution type on cytomorphology using liquid-based cytology. Acta Cytol. 2022 Jan;66(1):55–60. Cox JT. Liquid-based cytology: evaluation of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and application to present practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2004 Nov;2(6):597–611. Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001 Sep;25(3):177–84. Ikeda K, Sato S, Chigira H, Shibuki Y, Hiraoka N. Effects of the storage solution type and prolonged storage on the immunoreactivity of cells. Acta Cytol. 2020 Jul;64(4):352–9. Hudock JA, Hanau CA, Christen R, Bibbo M. Expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in cytologic specimens using various fixatives. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996 Jul;15(1):78–83. Tripathy K, Mishra A, Singh AK, Panda PL, Mahapatra A, Lenka A. Immunocytochemistry using liquid-based cytology: a tool in hormone receptor analysis of breast cancer. J Cytol. 2018 Oct–Dec;35(4):260–4. Sato H, Norimatsu Y, Irino S, Nishikawa T. Efficacy of the antigenicity-retaining ability of fixative solutions for liquid-based cytology: immunocytochemistry of long-term storage. Acta Cytol. 2021 Nov;65(6):510–21. Kawahara A, Taira T, Abe H, Watari K, Murakami Y, Fukumitsu C, et al. Fixation effect of SurePath preservative fluids using epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-specific antibodies for immunocytochemistry. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Feb;122(2):145–52. Bjønness-Jacobsen EC, Eriksen AKK, Hagen VN, Østbye KM, Wittersø A, Pedersen MK, et al. The effect of the small amount of formaldehyde in the SurePath liquid when establishing protocols for immunocytochemistry. Cytojournal. 2016 Nov;13:27. Shimada Y, Imamura M, Wagata T, Yamaguchi N, Tobe T. Characterization of 21 newly established esophageal cancer cell lines. Cancer. 1992 Jan;69(2):277–84. Usami N, Fukui T, Kondo M, Taniguchi T, Yokoyama T, Mori S, et al. Establishment and characterization of four malignant pleural mesothelioma cell lines from Japanese patients. Cancer Sci. 2006 May;97(5):387–94. Ogasawara N, Matsushima M, Kawamura N, Atsumi K, Yamaguchi T, Ochi H, et al. Modulation of immunological activity on macrophages induced by diazinon. Toxicology. 2017 Mar;379:22–30. Hoda RS. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Oct;35(10):621–34. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: nongynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997 Apr;16(4):368–71. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer. 2006 Jun;108(3):144–9. Ikeda K, Tate G, Suzuki T, Mitsuya T. Comparison of immunocytochemical sensitivity between formalin-fixed and alcohol-fixed specimens reveals the diagnostic value of alcohol-fixed cytocentrifuged preparations in malignant effusion cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011 Dec;136(6):934–42. Pollice AA, McCoy JP Jr., Shackney SE, Smith CA, Agarwal J, Burholt DR, et al. Sequential paraformaldehyde and methanol fixation for simultaneous flow cytometric analysis of DNA, cell surface proteins, and intracellular proteins. Cytometry. 1992;13(4):432–44. Mørkve O, Høstmark J. Influence of tissue preparation techniques on p53 expression in bronchial and bladder carcinomas, assessed by immunofluorescence staining and flow cytometry. Cytometry. 1991;12(7):622–7. Battifora H, Kopinski M. The influence of protease digestion and duration of fixation on the immunostaining of keratins. A comparison of formalin and ethanol fixation. J Histochem Cytochem. 1986 Aug;34(8):1095–100. Cizkova K, Flodrova P, Baranova R, Malohlava J, Lacey M, Tauber Z, et al. Beneficial effect of heat-induced antigen retrieval in immunocytochemical detection of intracellular antigens in alcohol-fixed cell samples. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2020 Feb;28(2):166–74. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: April 20, 2022
Accepted: July 14, 2022
Published online: October 13, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY