Wagner David G, Russell Donna K, Benson Jenna M, Schneider Ashley E, Hoda Rana S, Bonfiglio Thomas A
Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 983135 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198, USA.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Oct;39(10):730-6. doi: 10.1002/dc.21457. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
Traditional cell block (TCB) sections serve as an important diagnostic adjunct to cytologic smears but are also used today as a reliable preparation for immunohistochemical (IHC) studies. There are many ways to prepare a cell block and the methods continue to be revised. In this study, we compare the TCB with the Cellient™ automated cell block system. Thirty-five cell blocks were obtained from 16 benign and 19 malignant nongynecologic cytology specimens at a large university teaching hospital and prepared according to TCB and Cellient protocols. Cell block sections from both methods were compared for possible differences in various morphologic features and immunohistochemical staining patterns. In the 16 benign cases, no significant morphologic differences were found between the TCB and Cellient cell block sections. For the 19 malignant cases, some noticeable differences in the nuclear chromatin and cellularity were identified, although statistical significance was not attained. Immunohistochemical or special stains were performed on 89% of the malignant cases (17/19). Inadequate cellularity precluded full evaluation in 23% of Cellient cell block IHC preparations (4/17). Of the malignant cases with adequate cellularity (13/17), the immunohistochemical staining patterns from the different methods were identical in 53% of cases. The traditional and Cellient cell block sections showed similar morphologic and immunohistochemical staining patterns. The only significant difference between the two methods concerned the lower overall cell block cellularity identified during immunohistochemical staining in the Cellient cell block sections.
传统细胞块（TCB）切片是细胞学涂片的重要诊断辅助手段，如今也用作免疫组织化学（IHC）研究的可靠标本制备方法。制备细胞块有多种方法，且这些方法仍在不断改进。在本研究中，我们将TCB与Cellient™自动化细胞块系统进行了比较。从一所大型大学教学医院的16例良性和19例恶性非妇科细胞学标本中获取了35个细胞块，并按照TCB和Cellient方案进行制备。比较了两种方法制备的细胞块切片在各种形态学特征和免疫组织化学染色模式方面可能存在的差异。在16例良性病例中，TCB和Cellient细胞块切片之间未发现明显的形态学差异。对于19例恶性病例，虽然未达到统计学显著性，但在核染色质和细胞密度方面发现了一些明显差异。89%的恶性病例（17/19）进行了免疫组织化学或特殊染色。在23%的Cellient细胞块免疫组化标本（4/17）中，细胞密度不足妨碍了全面评估。在细胞密度足够的恶性病例（13/17）中，53%的病例不同方法的免疫组织化学染色模式相同。传统细胞块和Cellient细胞块切片显示出相似的形态学和免疫组织化学染色模式。两种方法之间唯一的显著差异在于，在Cellient细胞块切片的免疫组织化学染色过程中，整体细胞块细胞密度较低。
