A Russell Moore1, Emily Coffey2, Dwayne Hamar3. 1. Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 3. Colorado State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine hepatic copper content has been increasing. Recognition of canine copper-associated hepatopathies is becoming more common. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Wright-Giemsa (WG) and rhodanine staining for detection of increased canine hepatic copper following a proposed cytologic protocol for semi-quantitative evaluation of liver aspirates and the effect of previous WG staining. METHODS: Retrospectively, 40 canine hepatic WG-stained cytology cases were rhodanine stained. Diagnostic performance of WG staining for increased hepatic copper was evaluated. A rhodanine-stained cytologic copper grading system was developed. Prospectively, 67 canine liver samples with quantitative copper measurement, a WG-then rhodanine-stained slide, and a non-WG rhodanine-stained slide were used to assess the performance of the grading system and the effect of previous WG staining. RESULTS: Copper was not described in 40 retrospective cases on initial cytologic evaluation; 8/40 cases had increased copper content after rhodanine staining or quantitative copper assessment. Prior WG staining and destaining significantly affected the cytologic copper grade but not the diagnostic performance as measured by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. Quantitative copper concentration and previously WG-stained copper grade were moderately correlated (n = 67, ρ = .79 [.68-.87]). For detection of ≥ 600 ppm, dry weight (dw) copper, sensitivity was .75 and specificity was .97. For detection of ≥ 1500 ppm, dw copper, sensitivity was 1.0 and specificity was .97. CONCLUSIONS: Wright-Giemsa staining alone does not reliably detect hepatic copper. Grading of rhodanine-stained canine hepatic cytologic samples demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance for detection of copper content.
BACKGROUND:Canine hepatic copper content has been increasing. Recognition of caninecopper-associated hepatopathies is becoming more common. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Wright-Giemsa (WG) and rhodanine staining for detection of increased canine hepatic copper following a proposed cytologic protocol for semi-quantitative evaluation of liver aspirates and the effect of previous WG staining. METHODS: Retrospectively, 40 canine hepatic WG-stained cytology cases were rhodanine stained. Diagnostic performance of WG staining for increased hepatic copper was evaluated. A rhodanine-stained cytologic copper grading system was developed. Prospectively, 67 canine liver samples with quantitative copper measurement, a WG-then rhodanine-stained slide, and a non-WG rhodanine-stained slide were used to assess the performance of the grading system and the effect of previous WG staining. RESULTS:Copper was not described in 40 retrospective cases on initial cytologic evaluation; 8/40 cases had increased copper content after rhodanine staining or quantitative copper assessment. Prior WG staining and destaining significantly affected the cytologic copper grade but not the diagnostic performance as measured by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. Quantitative copper concentration and previously WG-stained copper grade were moderately correlated (n = 67, ρ = .79 [.68-.87]). For detection of ≥ 600 ppm, dry weight (dw) copper, sensitivity was .75 and specificity was .97. For detection of ≥ 1500 ppm, dw copper, sensitivity was 1.0 and specificity was .97. CONCLUSIONS: Wright-Giemsa staining alone does not reliably detect hepatic copper. Grading of rhodanine-stained canine hepatic cytologic samples demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance for detection of copper content.