Petronius Dan, Bergman Reuven, Ben Izhak Ofer, Leiba Ronit, Sprecher Eli
Department of Dermatology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.
Am J Dermatopathol. 2003 Jun;25(3):198-203. doi: 10.1097/00000372-200306000-00003.
Electron microscopic examination still is the gold standard for classifying epidermolysis bullosa, although it is relatively expensive, time consuming, and not readily available. Immunoreagents have been developed recently to map antigens in the basement membrane on routinely processed specimens. The current study was performed to examine the diagnostic usefulness of immunohistochemistry, as compared with electron microscopic examination, for analyzing routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections of epidermolysis bullosa. This study investigated 39 consecutively diagnosed cases of epidermolysis bullosa in which both electron microscopic examination and immunohistochemistry were used. In each case, three monoclonal antibodies were used to stain for laminin 1, collagen IV, and keratin. The immunohistochemical patterns were defined as follows: epidermolysis bullosa simplex (laminin, collagen IV, or both at the dermal floor of the blister and keratin at both the dermal floor and the epidermal roof), junctional epidermolysis bullosa (laminin, collagen IV, or both at the dermal floor of the blister and keratin only at the epidermal roof), and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (collagen IV, laminin, or both, and keratin all at the epidermal roof). Altogether, electron microscopic examination subclassified epidermolysis bullosa into its three major forms in 37 of the 39 cases (95%), and immunohistochemistry in 33 of the 39 cases (85%). All of the classifiable cases were concordant. Specifically, immunohistochemistry was diagnostic in 10 of 14 (71%) epidermolysis bullosa simplex cases, 14 of 14 (100%) junctional epidermolysis bullosa cases, and 9 of 11 (82%) dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa cases. The most frequent cause for inconclusive immunohistochemical results was failure in staining of the basement membrane with the antibodies to both laminin and collagen IV. In conclusion, the use of immunohistochemistry on routinely processed specimens may be useful for subclassifying epidermolysis bullosa into its major forms in the majority of the cases, although it still cannot fully replace electron microscopic examination or immunofluorescence mapping in the diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa.
尽管电子显微镜检查相对昂贵、耗时且不易获得,但它仍然是大疱性表皮松解症分类的金标准。最近已开发出免疫试剂,用于在常规处理的标本上绘制基底膜中的抗原。本研究旨在检验免疫组织化学与电子显微镜检查相比,在分析大疱性表皮松解症常规福尔马林固定石蜡包埋切片时的诊断效用。本研究调查了39例连续诊断的大疱性表皮松解症病例,这些病例均同时进行了电子显微镜检查和免疫组织化学检查。在每个病例中,使用三种单克隆抗体对层粘连蛋白1、IV型胶原和角蛋白进行染色。免疫组织化学模式定义如下:单纯性大疱性表皮松解症(水疱真皮底部的层粘连蛋白、IV型胶原或两者,以及真皮底部和表皮顶部的角蛋白)、交界性大疱性表皮松解症(水疱真皮底部的层粘连蛋白、IV型胶原或两者,以及仅在表皮顶部的角蛋白)和营养不良性大疱性表皮松解症(IV型胶原、层粘连蛋白或两者,以及所有在表皮顶部的角蛋白)。总体而言,电子显微镜检查在39例中的37例(95%)将大疱性表皮松解症分为三种主要类型,免疫组织化学在39例中的33例(85%)做到了这一点。所有可分类的病例结果一致。具体而言,免疫组织化学在14例单纯性大疱性表皮松解症病例中的10例(71%)、14例交界性大疱性表皮松解症病例中的14例(100%)以及11例营养不良性大疱性表皮松解症病例中的9例(82%)具有诊断价值。免疫组织化学结果无法确定的最常见原因是层粘连蛋白和IV型胶原抗体对基底膜染色失败。总之,在常规处理的标本上使用免疫组织化学在大多数情况下可能有助于将大疱性表皮松解症分为主要类型,尽管在大疱性表皮松解症的诊断中它仍不能完全替代电子显微镜检查或免疫荧光图谱分析。