Leong Anthony S-Y, Leong Trishe Y-M
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Methods Mol Biol. 2011;724:37-68. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-055-3_3.
The rapid acceptance of immunohistology as an invaluable adjunct to morphologic diagnosis has been possible because of the development of new and more sensitive antibodies and detection systems that allow its application to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPT). More importantly, antigen-retrieval techniques have resulted in some degree of consistency allowing immunohistology to be used reliably as a diagnostic tool. The advent of prognostic and predictive biomarkers, and the desire for individualized therapy has resulted in mounting pressure to employ the immunohistological assay in a quantitative manner. While it was not a major issue when the technique was employed in a qualitative manner, the numerous variables in the preanalytical and analytical phases of the test procedure that influence the immunoexpression of proteins in FFPT become critical to standardization. Tissue fixation is pivotal to antigen preservation but exposure to fixative prior to accessioning by the laboratory is not controlled. Antigen retrieval, crucial in the analytical phase, continues to be employed in an empirical manner with the actual mechanism of action remaining elusive. There is great variation in reagents, methodology, and duration of tissue processing and immunostaining procedure, and the detection systems employed are not standardized between laboratories. While many of these variables are offset by the application of antigen retrieval, which enables the detection of a wide range of antigens in FFPT, the method itself is not standardized. This myriad of variables makes it inappropriate to provide meaningful comparisons of results obtained in different laboratories and even in the same laboratory, as in current practice, each specimen experiences different preanalytical variables. Furthermore, variables in interpretation exist and cutoff thresholds for positivity differ. Failure to recognize false-positive and false-negative stains leads to further errors of quantitative measurement. Many of the problems relating to the technology and interpretation of immunostaining originate from failure to recognize that this procedure is different from other histological stains and involves many more steps that cannot be monitored until the end result is attained. While several remedial measures can be suggested to address some of these problems, accurate and reproducible quantitative assessment of immunostains presently remains elusive as important variables that impact on antigen preservation in the paraffin-embedded biopsy -cannot be standardized.
免疫组织学能够迅速被接受并成为形态学诊断的重要辅助手段,这得益于新型且更灵敏的抗体及检测系统的发展,这些使得免疫组织学能够应用于福尔马林固定、石蜡包埋组织(FFPT)。更重要的是,抗原修复技术在一定程度上实现了一致性,使得免疫组织学能够可靠地用作诊断工具。预后和预测生物标志物的出现,以及对个体化治疗的需求,使得以定量方式应用免疫组织学检测的压力不断增加。当该技术以定性方式应用时,这并非主要问题,但检测过程中分析前和分析阶段的众多变量会影响FFPT中蛋白质的免疫表达,这些变量对于标准化至关重要。组织固定对于抗原保存至关重要,但实验室接收标本前的固定剂暴露情况却无法控制。抗原修复在分析阶段至关重要,但其仍以经验方式应用,实际作用机制仍不明确。组织处理和免疫染色程序在试剂、方法和持续时间方面存在很大差异,不同实验室采用的检测系统也未标准化。虽然抗原修复的应用抵消了许多这些变量的影响,使FFPT中广泛的抗原得以检测,但该方法本身并不标准化。如此众多的变量使得不同实验室甚至同一实验室获得的结果难以进行有意义的比较,因为在当前实践中,每个标本都经历了不同的分析前变量。此外,在解读方面存在变量,阳性判断的临界阈值也不同。未能识别假阳性和假阴性染色会导致进一步的定量测量误差。许多与免疫染色技术和解读相关的问题源于未能认识到该程序与其他组织学染色不同,且涉及更多步骤,直到最终结果得出才能进行监测。虽然可以提出一些补救措施来解决其中一些问题,但由于影响石蜡包埋活检中抗原保存的重要变量无法标准化,目前仍难以实现免疫染色的准确和可重复定量评估。