Institute of Medical Technology, University of Tampere and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Hum Pathol. 2011 Nov;42(11):1635-42. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.12.021. Epub 2011 Apr 15.
We performed dual-color immunostaining with a 3-antibody cocktail (α-methylacyl coenzyme-A racemase, CK34betaE12, and p63) on prostate biopsies from 200 patients. Current practice (hematoxylin and eosin staining followed by dual-color immunostaining on selected cases) was compared with a protocol in which routine dual-color immunostaining was provided in all cases. In the original pathology reports, adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 87/200 (43%) patients. Small foci interpreted as putative cancers were detected with dual-color immunostaining in 14/113 patients who were originally diagnosed with a nonmalignant lesion. All of the suggested cancerous foci were independently reevaluated by 5 pathologists. A diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was assessed by consensus in 8 cases, and atypical small acinar proliferation was diagnosed in 1 case. Consensus was not reached in 5 cases. Six of the foci reclassified as cancer were of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6, while 2 were graded as Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8. The feasibility of routine dual-color immunostaining was also tested by analyzing the time spent on microscopic assessment. Because small, atypical lesions expressing α-methylacyl coenzyme-A racemase (blue chromogen) were easy to detect using dual-color immunostaining, the microscopic analysis of dual-color immunostaining and hematoxylin-eosin staining was faster than that of hematoxylin-eosin staining alone that was later followed by dual-color immunostaining in selected cases (median 251 seconds versus 299 seconds, P < .0001). We concluded that routine dual-color immunostaining of all prostate biopsies would produce better diagnostic sensitivity with a smaller microscopy workload for the pathologist. However, minute foci interpreted as cancer with dual-color immunostaining need to be confirmed with hematoxylin-eosin staining, and minimal criteria for a definitive diagnosis of cancer are still lacking.
我们对 200 例前列腺活检组织进行了三抗体双色免疫染色(α-甲基酰基辅酶 A 消旋酶、CK34βE12 和 p63)。将目前的实践(苏木精和伊红染色,然后对选定病例进行双色免疫染色)与一种方案进行了比较,该方案对所有病例均提供常规双色免疫染色。在最初的病理报告中,87/200(43%)例患者被诊断为腺癌。在最初诊断为非恶性病变的 14/113 例患者中,通过双色免疫染色检测到小灶疑似癌症。所有建议的癌灶均由 5 位病理学家独立重新评估。8 例通过共识评估诊断为腺癌,1 例诊断为不典型小腺泡增生。5 例未达成共识。重新分类为癌症的 6 个病灶的 Gleason 评分为 3+3=6,而 2 个病灶的 Gleason 评分为 4+4=8。通过分析显微镜评估所花费的时间,也测试了常规双色免疫染色的可行性。由于使用双色免疫染色很容易检测到表达α-甲基酰基辅酶 A 消旋酶(蓝色显色剂)的小而不典型的病变,因此与在选定病例中仅进行苏木精-伊红染色后再进行双色免疫染色相比,双色免疫染色和苏木精-伊红染色的显微镜分析更快(中位数 251 秒与 299 秒,P<0.0001)。我们得出的结论是,对所有前列腺活检组织进行常规双色免疫染色可以提高诊断敏感性,同时减少病理学家的显微镜工作量。然而,使用双色免疫染色解释为癌症的微小灶需要用苏木精-伊红染色来确认,并且仍然缺乏明确诊断癌症的最小标准。