Department of Anatomic Pathology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Department of Anatomic Pathology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020 Jan-Feb;9(1):20-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jasc.2019.06.003. Epub 2019 Jul 4.
We performed a comparison of cell blocks prepared with the collodion bag and HistoGel to evaluate the ease of embedding and cutting, performance with low cellularity specimens, time and cost per specimen, and value to support immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics.
We processed 11 fresh, unfixed effusions using both the collodion bag and the HistoGel cell block preparation methods. Six immunohistochemistry stains were tested on 2 of the body fluids. DNA was extracted and quantified, and polymerase chain reaction cycle thresholds were evaluated from cell blocks prepared from 5 of the body fluids. The comparison parameters included embedding difficulty, cutting resistance, adequacy, cell yield, cell preservation, immunohistochemistry stain quality, DNA quantity, integrity, and purity. The time and cost to prepare each specimen was compared using normalized values for preparation of specimen, cost per year, and cost per specimen.
Each parameter was assessed for both cell block preparation methods. All 3 of the samples with moderate or poor cell yield were low-volume (5-mL) samples prepared with the HistoGel method. In contrast, the collodion bag method produced a good yield with all three 5-mL samples. DNA recovery was greater in the collodion bag method. Similar crossing threshold values in purity reactions indicated equally high-quality matrix properties for the collodion bag and HistoGel preparations. Preparation of the specimen was 10 minutes faster with the collodion bag method, and the cost for the collodion bag method was $0.24 more expensive per cell block than using the HistoGel.
The collodion bag method produced superior cell blocks for both morphologic and molecular studies more consistently, with lower volume specimens and with less time per specimen.
我们比较了使用胶袋和 HistoGel 制备细胞块，以评估其包埋和切割的便利性、对低细胞标本的性能、每个标本的时间和成本，以及支持免疫组织化学和分子诊断的价值。
我们使用胶袋和 HistoGel 细胞块制备方法处理了 11 份新鲜、未经固定的渗出液。对其中 2 份体液进行了 6 种免疫组织化学染色测试。从 5 份体液制备的细胞块中提取并定量 DNA，并评估聚合酶链反应循环阈值。比较参数包括包埋难度、切割阻力、充分性、细胞产量、细胞保存、免疫组织化学染色质量、DNA 数量、完整性和纯度。使用标本制备的归一化值、每年成本和每个标本的成本比较每种标本的准备时间和成本。
对两种细胞块制备方法评估了每个参数。所有 3 份中等或低细胞产量的样本均为低体积（5 毫升）的 HistoGel 方法制备的样本。相比之下，胶袋方法对所有 3 个 5 毫升样本都产生了良好的产量。胶袋方法的 DNA 回收率更高。纯度反应中的相似交叉阈值值表明胶袋和 HistoGel 制剂具有同样高质量的基质特性。胶袋方法的标本制备时间快 10 分钟，而胶袋方法的每个细胞块成本比使用 HistoGel 方法高 0.24 美元。
胶袋方法更一致地为形态学和分子研究产生了更好的细胞块，对于低体积标本，每个标本的时间更短。
