Literature DB >> 28112755

Larger core size has superior technical and analytical accuracy in bladder tissue microarray.

Adel Rh Eskaros1, Shanna A Arnold Egloff1,2, Kelli L Boyd1, Joyce E Richardson1, M Eric Hyndman3, Andries Zijlstra1.   

Abstract

The construction of tissue microarrays (TMAs) with cores from a large number of paraffin-embedded tissues (donors) into a single paraffin block (recipient) is an effective method of analyzing samples from many patient specimens simultaneously. For the TMA to be successful, the cores within it must capture the correct histologic areas from the donor blocks (technical accuracy) and maintain concordance with the tissue of origin (analytical accuracy). This can be particularly challenging for tissues with small histological features such as small islands of carcinoma in situ (CIS), thin layers of normal urothelial lining of the bladder, or cancers that exhibit intratumor heterogeneity. In an effort to create a comprehensive TMA of a bladder cancer patient cohort that accurately represents the tumor heterogeneity and captures the small features of normal and CIS, we determined how core size (0.6 vs 1.0 mm) impacted the technical and analytical accuracy of the TMA. The larger 1.0 mm core exhibited better technical accuracy for all tissue types at 80.9% (normal), 94.2% (tumor), and 71.4% (CIS) compared with 58.6%, 85.9%, and 63.8% for 0.6 mm cores. Although the 1.0 mm core provided better tissue capture, increasing the number of replicates from two to three allowed with the 0.6 mm core compensated for this reduced technical accuracy. However, quantitative image analysis of proliferation using both Ki67+ immunofluorescence counts and manual mitotic counts demonstrated that the 1.0 mm core size also exhibited significantly greater analytical accuracy (P=0.004 and 0.035, respectively, r2=0.979 and 0.669, respectively). Ultimately, our findings demonstrate that capturing two or more 1.0 mm cores for TMA construction provides superior technical and analytical accuracy over the smaller 0.6 mm cores, especially for tissues harboring small histological features or substantial heterogeneity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28112755     DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.2016.151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lab Invest        ISSN: 0023-6837            Impact factor:   5.662


  5 in total

1.  Immunotyping and Quantification of Melanoma Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes.

Authors:  Max O Meneveau; Zeyad T Sahli; Kevin T Lynch; Ileana S Mauldin; Craig L Slingluff
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

2.  Comparison of TMA Technique and Routine Whole Slide Analysis in Evaluation of Proliferative Markers Expression in Laryngeal Squamous Cell Cancer.

Authors:  Urszula Ciesielska; Aleksandra Piotrowska; Christopher Kobierzycki; Wojciech Pastuszewski; Marzenna Podhorska-Okolow; Piotr Dziegiel; Katarzyna Nowinska
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  PAM staining intensity of primary neuroendocrine neoplasms is a potential prognostic biomarker.

Authors:  Timothy M Horton; Vandana Sundaram; Christine Hye-Jin Lee; Kathleen Hornbacker; Aidan Van Vleck; Kaisha N Benjamin; Allison Zemek; Teri A Longacre; Pamela L Kunz; Justin P Annes
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Expression of Autophagy Markers Beclin1 and LC3B in Prostatic Carcinoma: An Immunohistochemical Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Nanis S Holah; Marwa M Serag El-Dien; Shereen F Mahmoud
Journal:  Iran J Pathol       Date:  2021-09-15

5.  Loss of expression rather than cytoplasmic mislocalization of RUNX3 predicts worse outcome in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Xiaohui Chen; Yujie Deng; Yi Shi; Weifeng Zhu; Yibin Cai; Chunwei Xu; Kunshou Zhu; Xiongwei Zheng; Gang Chen; Qi Xie; Guoxing Weng
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 2.967

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.