Nickolay Fedchenko1,2, Janin Reifenrath3. 1. Small Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559, Hannover, Germany. fedchenko.nick@gmail.com. 2. Department of Pathological Anatomy and Forensic Medicine, SE "Dnipropetrovsk Medical Academy of Health Ministry of Ukraine", Dzerginskogo st. 9, 49044, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. fedchenko.nick@gmail.com. 3. Small Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559, Hannover, Germany. janin.reifenrath@tiho-hannover.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a well-established, widely accepted method in both clinical and experimental parts of medical science. It allows receiving valuable information about any process in any tissue, and especially in bone. Each year the amount of data, received by IHC, grows in geometric progression. But the lack of standardization, especially on the post-analytical stage (interpreting and reporting of results), makes the comparison of the results of different studies impossible. METHODS: Comprehensive PubMED literature search with a combination of search words "immunohistochemistry" and "scoring system" was performed and 773 articles describing IHC results were identified. After further manual analysis 120 articles were selected for detailed evaluation of used approaches. RESULTS: Six major approaches to the interpretation and presentation of IHC analysis results were identified, analyzed and described. CONCLUSIONS: The overview of the existing approaches in evaluation and interpretation of IHC data, which are provided in the article, can be used in bone tissue research and for either better understanding of existing scoring systems or developing a new one. Standard multiparametric, semiquantitative IHC scoring systems should simplify and clarify the process of interpretation and reporting of received data. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_221.
BACKGROUND: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a well-established, widely accepted method in both clinical and experimental parts of medical science. It allows receiving valuable information about any process in any tissue, and especially in bone. Each year the amount of data, received by IHC, grows in geometric progression. But the lack of standardization, especially on the post-analytical stage (interpreting and reporting of results), makes the comparison of the results of different studies impossible. METHODS: Comprehensive PubMED literature search with a combination of search words "immunohistochemistry" and "scoring system" was performed and 773 articles describing IHC results were identified. After further manual analysis 120 articles were selected for detailed evaluation of used approaches. RESULTS: Six major approaches to the interpretation and presentation of IHC analysis results were identified, analyzed and described. CONCLUSIONS: The overview of the existing approaches in evaluation and interpretation of IHC data, which are provided in the article, can be used in bone tissue research and for either better understanding of existing scoring systems or developing a new one. Standard multiparametric, semiquantitative IHC scoring systems should simplify and clarify the process of interpretation and reporting of received data. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_221.
Authors: M Klein; E Picard; J M Vignaud; B Marie; L Bresler; B Toussaint; G Weryha; A Duprez; J Leclère Journal: J Endocrinol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.286
Authors: Kathrin Stavenhagen; Lisa C Laan; Chao Gao; Akul Y Mehta; Jamie Heimburg-Molinaro; Jonathan N Glickman; Irma van Die; Richard D Cummings Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2021-06-05 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: Zhifen Zhou; Min Li; Lin Zhang; Hong Zhao; Özgür Şahin; Jing Chen; Jean J Zhao; Zhou Songyang; Dihua Yu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Chunxia Du; Annacarolina da Silva; Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Brian M Wolpin; Jonathan A Nowak; Andressa Dias Costa; Margaret M Kozak; Richard F Dunne; Douglas A Rubinson; Kimberly Perez; Yohei Masugi; Tsuyoshi Hamada; Lauren K Brais; Chen Yuan; Ana Babic; Matthew D Ducar; Aaron R Thorner; Andrew Aguirre; Matthew H Kulke; Kimmie Ng; Thomas E Clancy; Jennifer J Findeis-Hosey; Daniel T Chang; Jason L Hornick; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino; Albert C Koong; Aram F Hezel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lucas Tadeu Bidinotto; Carlos A R Véo; Edgar Aleman Loaiza; Guilherme G Ribeiro; Adriana T Lorenzi; Luciana Albina Reis Rosa; Cristina Mendes De Oliveira; José Eduardo Levi; Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto; Adhemar Longatto-Filho; Rui Manuel Reis Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.967