Alafuzoff Irina, Pikkarainen Maria, Neumann Manuela, Arzberger Thomas, Al-Sarraj Safa, Bodi Istvan, Bogdanovic Nenad, Bugiani Orso, Ferrer Isidro, Gelpi Ellen, Gentleman Stephen, Giaccone Giorgio, Graeber Manuel B, Hortobagyi Tibor, Ince Paul G, Ironside James W, Kavantzas Nikolaos, King Andrew, Korkolopoulou Penelope, Kovács Gábor G, Meyronet David, Monoranu Camelia, Nilsson Tatjana, Parchi Piero, Patsouris Efstratios, Revesz Tamas, Roggendorf Wolfgang, Rozemuller Annemieke, Seilhean Danielle, Streichenberger Nathalie, Thal Dietmar R, Wharton Stephen B, Kretzschmar Hans
Section of Clinical Pathology Uppsala University Hospital, Rudbeck's Laboratory, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, 751 85, Uppsala, Sweden,
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2015 Jul;122(7):957-72. doi: 10.1007/s00702-014-1304-1. Epub 2014 Sep 20.
The BrainNet Europe consortium assessed the reproducibility in the assignment of the type of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP) 43 following current recommendations. The agreement rates were influenced by the immunohistochemical (IHC) method and by the classification strategy followed. p62-IHC staining yielded good uniform quality of stains, but the most reliable results were obtained implementing specific Abs directed against the hallmark protein TDP43. Both assessment of the type and the extent of lesions were influenced by the Abs and by the quality of stain. Assessment of the extent of the lesions yielded poor results repeatedly; thus, the extent of pathology should not be used in diagnostic consensus criteria. Whilst 31 neuropathologists typed 30 FTLD-TDP cases, inter-rater agreement ranged from 19 to 100 per cent, being highest when applying phosphorylated TDP43/IHC. The agreement was highest when designating Type C or Type A/B. In contrast, there was a poor agreement when attempting to separate Type A or Type B FTLD-TDP. In conclusion, we can expect that neuropathologist, independent of his/her familiarity with FTLD-TDP pathology, can identify a TDP43-positive FTLD case. The goal should be to state a Type (A, B, C, D) or a mixture of Types (A/B, A/C or B/C). Neuropathologists, other clinicians and researchers should be aware of the pitfalls whilst doing so. Agreement can be reached in an inter-laboratory setting regarding Type C cases with thick and long neurites, whereas the differentiation between Types A and B may be more troublesome.
欧洲脑网联盟根据当前建议评估了采用TAR DNA结合蛋白(TDP)43对额颞叶痴呆(FTLD)类型进行判定的可重复性。一致性率受免疫组织化学(IHC)方法以及所采用的分类策略影响。p62免疫组化染色产生的染色质量良好且均匀,但使用针对标志性蛋白TDP43的特异性抗体可获得最可靠的结果。病变类型和范围的评估均受抗体和染色质量的影响。病变范围的评估多次得出较差结果;因此,病变范围不应纳入诊断共识标准。虽然31位神经病理学家对30例FTLD-TDP病例进行了分型,但评分者间一致性范围为19%至100%,应用磷酸化TDP43/免疫组化时最高。指定为C型或A/B型时一致性最高。相比之下,试图区分A或B型FTLD-TDP时一致性较差。总之,我们可以预期,无论神经病理学家对FTLD-TDP病理学的熟悉程度如何,都能识别出TDP43阳性的FTLD病例。目标应该是确定一种类型(A、B、C、D)或多种类型的混合(A/B、A/C或B/C)。神经病理学家、其他临床医生和研究人员在这样做时应意识到其中的陷阱。在实验室间环境中,对于具有粗大和长神经突的C型病例可以达成一致,而A和B型之间的区分可能更麻烦。