Literature DB >> 25376104

Comparison of the Cellient(™) automated cell block system and agar cell block method.

A M Kruger1, M W Stevens, K J Kerley, C D Carter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Cellient(TM) automated cell block system with the agar cell block method in terms of quantity and quality of diagnostic material and morphological, histochemical and immunocytochemical features.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cell blocks were prepared from 100 effusion samples using the agar method and Cellient system, and routinely sectioned and stained for haematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid-Schiff with diastase (PASD). A preliminary immunocytochemical study was performed on selected cases (27/100 cases). Sections were evaluated using a three-point grading system to compare a set of morphological parameters. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Parameters assessing cellularity, presence of single cells and definition of nuclear membrane, nucleoli, chromatin and cytoplasm showed a statistically significant improvement on Cellient cell blocks compared with agar cell blocks (P < 0.05). No significant difference was seen for definition of cell groups, PASD staining or the intensity or clarity of immunocytochemical staining. A discrepant immunocytochemistry (ICC) result was seen in 21% (13/63) of immunostains.
CONCLUSION: The Cellient technique is comparable with the agar method, with statistically significant results achieved for important morphological features. It demonstrates potential as an alternative cell block preparation method which is relevant for the rapid processing of fine needle aspiration samples, malignant effusions and low-cellularity specimens, where optimal cell morphology and architecture are essential. Further investigation is required to optimize immunocytochemical staining using the Cellient method.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CellientTM; automated cell block; cell block; cytology; immunocytochemistry; serous effusion

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25376104     DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cytopathology        ISSN: 0956-5507            Impact factor:   2.073


  5 in total

Review 1.  Cell-block procedure in endoscopic ultrasound-guided-fine-needle-aspiration of gastrointestinal solid neoplastic lesions.

Authors:  Antonio Ieni; Valeria Barresi; Paolo Todaro; Rosario Alberto Caruso; Giovanni Tuccari
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-08-25

2.  Suitability of the CellientTM cell block method for diagnosing soft tissue and bone tumors.

Authors:  W Song; B M van Hemel; A J H Suurmeijer
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 1.582

3.  One-fits-all pretreatment protocol facilitating Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, fresh frozen and cytological slides.

Authors:  Shivanand O Richardson; Manon M H Huibers; Roel A de Weger; Wendy W J de Leng; John W J Hinrichs; Ruud W J Meijers; Stefan M Willems; Ton L M G Peeters
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 2.009

4.  The Value and Limitations of Cell Blocks in Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology: Experience of a Tertiary Care Center in North India.

Authors:  Vandna Bharati; Neha Kumari; Shalinee Rao; Girish Sindhwani; Nilotpal Chowdhury
Journal:  J Cytol       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  False-negative programmed death-ligand 1 immunostaining in ethanol-fixed endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens of non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Bregje M Koomen; Willem Vreuls; Mirthe de Boer; Emma J de Ruiter; Juergen Hoelters; Aryan Vink; Stefan M Willems
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 5.087

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.