Institute of Pathology, Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Anatomic Pathology Service, Portuguese Institute of Oncology Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal.
Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Oct;128(10):757-766. doi: 10.1002/cncy.22311. Epub 2020 Jun 29.
Variability in preanalytical and analytical steps for immunocytochemistry (ICC) on cytology samples is poorly defined. The objective of this study was to evaluate current practices for ICC on cytology samples in European laboratories.
A link to an online survey with 19 questions about ICC practices was distributed to cytology laboratories through national representatives in the European Federation of Cytology Societies.
In total, 245 laboratories responded to the survey by January 30, 2019. Cell blocks, cytospins, liquid-based cytology (LBC) preparations, and smears alone or in combination with other preparations were used for ICC in 38%, 22%, 21%, and 19% of laboratories, respectively. In general, various combinations of preparations were used for ICC in greater than one-half of laboratories (147 of 245; 60%), whereas only 1 specific type of cytology preparation was used in the remaining 98 of 245 laboratories (40%) laboratories. The majority of laboratories (217 of 226; 96%) performed ICC on automated platforms using protocols that were the same as those used for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples (238 of 527 laboratories; 45%), either optimized (138 of 527 laboratories; 26%) or optimized and validated (151 of 527 laboratories; 29%) for cytology preparations. Positive control slides, negative control slides, and external quality control were used in 174 of 223 (78%), 112 of 223 (50%), and 111 of 120 (50%) laboratories, respectively. Greater than 1000 ICC tests were performed yearly in 34% of laboratories (65 of 191; average, 1477 tests; median, 500 tests).
ICC is extensively performed in European laboratories using variously prepared cytology preparations on automated platforms, mostly without quality-assurance measures.
免疫细胞化学（ICC）在细胞学样本的前分析和分析步骤中存在很大的变异性，这种变异性的定义还不够完善。本研究的目的是评估欧洲实验室中 ICC 在细胞学样本上的当前应用情况。
通过欧洲细胞学学会联合会的国家代表，向细胞学实验室分发了一个链接，链接到一个关于 ICC 实践的在线调查，该调查有 19 个问题。
截至 2019 年 1 月 30 日，共有 245 个实验室通过调查回复。细胞块、细胞涂片、液体基础细胞学（LBC）制备物、涂片单独或与其他制备物一起用于 ICC 的实验室比例分别为 38%、22%、21%和 19%。通常，有超过一半的实验室（245 个中的 147 个；60%）使用各种组合的制备物进行 ICC，而剩余的 245 个实验室中的 98 个（40%）实验室仅使用特定类型的细胞学制备物进行 ICC。大多数实验室（226 个中的 217 个；96%）使用与用于福尔马林固定、石蜡包埋样本相同的方案在自动化平台上进行 ICC（527 个实验室中的 238 个；45%），要么进行了优化（527 个实验室中的 138 个；26%），要么进行了优化和验证（527 个实验室中的 151 个；29%）以适应细胞学制备物。174 个（223 个中的 174 个；78%）、112 个（223 个中的 112 个；50%）和 111 个（120 个中的 111 个；50%）实验室分别使用阳性对照载玻片、阴性对照载玻片和外部质量控制。34%的实验室（191 个中的 65 个）每年进行超过 1000 次 ICC 检测（平均每次检测 1477 次，中位数每次检测 500 次）。
在欧洲的实验室中，ICC 广泛应用于各种自动化平台制备的细胞学样本，其中大多数没有质量保证措施。
