| Literature DB >> 31367220 |
Abstract
Cell-blocks are paraffin-embedded versions of cytology specimens comparable to the formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue from surgical pathology specimens. They allow various elective ancillary studies on a variety of specimens with enhanced cytopathologic interpretation, including opportunity to perform molecular tests. However, different dictionaries and internet search engines primarily project "cellblock" and "cell block" definition in relation to prisons. Most of the top searches lead to information related to "prison cells" followed by a few cytopathology-related searches. Due to this in the current review, it is recommended that the word for cytopathology purposes should be hyphenated and spelled as "cell-block." Cell-blocks have been increasingly indicated on most cytology specimens. Its role is growing further with the ongoing addition of new immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers with technical advances including multicolor IHC and the SCIP (subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern) approach. In addition, it is an important source of tissue for many ancillary studies even as archived material retrospectively at later stage of management if the cell-blocks are improved qualitatively and quantitatively. Because of this, the significance of cell-block is critical with the increasing number of molecular markers standardized predominantly on FFPE tissue. As compared to core biopsies, high-quality cell-blocks prepared with enhanced methodologies predominantly contain concentrated diagnostic tumor cells required for the molecular tests without significant stromal contamination. This review introduces the terminology of CellBlockistry as the science of studying chemistry and the art of achieving quantitatively and qualitatively improved cell-blocks from different types of specimens. The review addresses the cell-block making process as "cell-blocking" and discusses different historical limitations with emphasis on recent advances.Entities:
Keywords: Biopsy; CellBlockistry; FFPE; SCIP; cell block; cell-blocking; chromogenic in situ hybridization; cytocrit; cytology; fine needle aspiration; fixation; formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded; immunohistochemistry; molecular pathology; subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern; tissuecrit
Year: 2019 PMID: 31367220 PMCID: PMC6628727 DOI: 10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_20_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cytojournal ISSN: 1742-6413 Impact factor: 2.091
Figure 1Different types of approaches for cell-blocking
Figure 2The fresh, unfixed specimens may be divided into various categories for workflow
CellBlockistry- summary [Figure 1]
| Gel (heat)-based methods | Require heating and melting of the gel with long cooling time for the medium to gel. In addition, the button formed is usually flimsy due to which centrifugation approach to align the diagnostic material precisely along the cutting surface cannot be achieved reproducibly. Cannot control the depth of cutting without including some mechanism such as AV marker. These issues lead to conventional suboptimal outcome. Overheating may compromise morphological and other integrity potentially affecting results of some IHC and other molecular tests | Low cost, can be applied to fixed or fresh specimen. Can be applied to generate FFPE which is recommended for various types of ancillary tests | No (if processed as FFPE with fixation/processing similar to the processing of surgical pathology specimens) | Less practical (random, indiscriminatory) | |
| Proprietary (heat-based) gel, for example, HistoGel™ (with or without Shidham’s method)[ | Higher cost. Require heating and melting of the gel with relatively shorter cooling time for the medium to gel, due to which centrifugation approach to align the diagnostic material precisely along the cutting surface may be compromised. | Firm button which allows precise alignment of the diagnostic material along the cutting surface, if done properly with Shidham’s method under hot conditions. | No (if processed as FFPE with fixation/processing similar to the processing of surgical pathology specimens) | Good method, but suboptimal nonreproducible outcome frequent | |
| The reproducibility is affected by skill and other variables related to laboratory infrastructure. Cannot control the depth of cutting without including some mechanism such as AV marker | Can be applied to the fixed or fresh specimen. Can be applied to generate FFPE which is recommended for various types of ancillary tests | (random, indiscriminatory could be enhanced category if with Shidham’s method) | |||
| Methods based on chemically-induced coagulation | Require special reagents and protocol to be standardized, but the button formed is usually flimsy due to which centrifugation approach to align the diagnostic material precisely along the cutting surface cannot be achieved reproducibly. Many chemicals such as picric acid and acetic acid will interfere with results of IHC and other molecular tests | No significant advantages | Possible | Less practical (random, indiscriminatory) | |
| Proprietary Cellient-alcohol[ | Require significant capital investment including dependence on proprietary special reagents. Protocol related to exposure to non-formalin tissue processing (protocol uses alcohol fixation) which may interfere with results of IHC and other molecular tests. In addition, each specimen has to be processed sequentially (with processing time 45 min for each) with practical limitations related to the high turnover laboratory. Cannot control the depth of cutting due to the inability to incorporate mechanism such as AV marker | Good morphology (However, IHC results may not be comparable to published data mostly based on FFPE) | Possible | Good method, but the suboptimal nonreproducible outcome (especially hypocellular specimens) with potential liabilities related to ancillary tests such as IHC | |
| Proprietary Shandon Cytoblock | Require significant capital investment, including dependence on proprietary special reagents. Steps related to the instruments require the maintenance of reusable such as clips and funnels with related liability including potential for contamination | No significant advantages | Good method, but the suboptimal nonreproducible outcome (especially hypocellular specimens) | ||
| Coagulation (enzymatic) based - | Need dedicated pass with a significant proportion of FNA usually with wider gauge needle.[ | Simple method | No (if processed as FFPE with fixation/processing similar to the processing of surgical pathology specimens) | Good method, but suboptimal nonreproducible outcome frequent (random, indiscriminatory) | |
| The button formed is usually flimsy due to which centrifugation approach to align the diagnostic material precisely along the cutting surface cannot be achieved reproducibly. Cannot control the depth of cutting without including some mechanism such as AV marker | Simple method for specimens with high cytocrit/tissuecrit [ | No (potential of nonspecific background with some immunostains) | Good method, but suboptimal nonreproducible outcome frequent. (random, indiscriminatory) | ||
| Celloidin method[ | Require special reagents and preparation of Collodion bags in advance with problem and risks associated with handling highly volatile and inflammable reagents. Require to standardize the protocol for each laboratory setup with proper practice and skill development. | No significant advantages | Possible (especially if B5 fixative treatment step is applied) | Not recommended | |
| From already processed cytology preparations | The protocol is complex and more demanding. Exposure to numerous reagents and fixatives will interfere with the results of IHC and other molecular tests | No significant advantages, except retrieval of thick tissue fragments in smears, may still be processed with potential to study histomorphological features | Yes | Not recommended | |
| Proprietary preformed gel disc with wells: | The only limitation is the availability of kit | The self-sufficient kits allow reproducibility like automation | No | Good method with many benefits [for any specimen including hypocellular specimens with lower Tissuecrit | |
| Proprietary preformed sponge disc with wells: | Same as #16 | No | Only for Cellular specimens with more than 1 ml concentrate with >50% Cytocrit/Tissuecrit [ | ||
FFPE: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, IHC: Immunohistochemistry, FNA: Fine-needle aspiration, B5: A fixative, SCIP: Subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern
Figure 3Cytocrit/Tissuecrit defined (to categorize the cytology specimens for selection of Cell-blocking protocols). For choosing Cell-blocking protocols for optimum yield, the cytology specimens may be broadly divided into two categories: (i) Hypocellular-Specimens generating <1 ml final concentrated sediment with <50% Tissuercrit. (ii) Cellular-Specimens generating >1 ml final concentrated sediment with >50% Tissuercrit
Figure 4Conventional cell-blocking: Randomness of the depth of cutting, leading to suboptimum cellularity of final tissue sections
Issues related to fixatives in relation to cell-blocking
| 1 | Formalin[ | Sections of resultant FFPE would show histomorphology comparable to that with formalin-fixed biopsies and resections | IHC results would be comparable to that with published data predominantly based on FFPE studies | The limiting factor with FFPE is fragmentation of DNA with associated artifacts during sequencing with potential interference |
| 2 | Chemical-based fixatives including the fixatives with heavy metal (B5, Zenker’s fixative) | Histomorphology is not affected significantly and is comparable to that with formalin-fixed biopsies and resections | Morphologically good immunostaining, but results may NOT be comparable to that with FFPE with which the results will be compared. This may lead to aberrant immunoprofile with liability due to potential compromisation of patient care | Little data related to stability of nucleic acids (Some such as picric acid results in DNA damage) |
| 3 | Alcohol | Histomorphology is not affected significantly and is comparable that with formalin-fixed biopsies and resections | Immunoreactivity may be affected with erroneous immunoprofiles resulting in suboptimal interpretation outcome. This is especially applicable to nuclear immunomarkers including ER/PR, Ki-67, PCNA, p53, S-100 protein, etc.,[ | Standardized tests/protocols may be required |
B5: A fixative; IHC: Immunohistochemistry; LBC: liquid-based cytology; PCNA: Proliferating cell nuclear antigen, ER: Estrogen receptors, PR: Progesterone receptor
Figure 5Cell-blocking and AV marker for SCIP (Subtractive Coordinate Immunoreactivity Pattern) approach.[23] Reproduced from: Shidham and Atkinson, ‘Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Serous Fluids’ Chapter #14 (Appendix 1), Elsevier (W. B. Saunders Company) First edition, 2007 (ISBN-13: 9781416001454[12]
Conventional random methods versus enhanced methodologies with or without mechanism to monitor the depth at which diagnostic cells are aligned
| Gel-based methods | Shandon Cytoblock™ method[ | Shidham method using gel such as Histogel[ |
| Gelatin,[ | Cellient™ proprietary | Precision pre-made media |
| Coagulation-based methods | automated cell-block system which archives concentration, processing, and embedding of sediments in cytology specimen for making a paraffin block | Gel medium - For example, the proprietary |
| Egg albumin-Alcohol[ | ||
| Preformed supporting media | Foam medium - For example, the proprietary[ | |
| Celloidin method[ | ||
| Other methods | ||
| Clot (from FNAB specimens and in effusion fluids),[ | ||
FNAB: Fine-needle aspiration biopsy
Figure 6(a) Low magnification view of the sections of cell-block produced by Nano NextGen CelBloking™ kit of blood contaminated cytology specimens. (b) Theses sections have tendency to float and fold, especially during immunostaining and other procedures requiring handling and processing through multiple reagents with problems related to floater contamination
Figure 8Blood contaminated cytology specimen (H and E). (a) Schematic showing result of centrifuging the blood-rich concentrated specimen with diagnostic cells which group with nucleated cells in the buffy coat area above red blood cells. (b) The longitudinal sections of one of the wells in the cell-block made with Nano NextGen CelBloking™ kit. (c) The bottom of the wells is predominantly red blood cells with tumor cells on the top which will be way deep to the actual cutting surface of usual cell blocks (H and E). (d and e) Higher magnification showing the diagnostic tumor cells in the area corresponding with the buffy coat (H and E)
Figure 9Protocol for Ficoll-Hypaque gradient separation of red blood cells. Reproduced from: Shidham and Atkinson, ‘Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Serous Fluids’ Chapter #14 (Appendix 1), Elsevier (W. B. Saunders Company) First edition, 2007 (ISBN-13: 9781416001454[12]
Figure 10Processing of blood contaminated specimens with BloodLyz™ to nullify the problems related to red blood cell contamination[3558]
Figure 11Concentration of sediments in cytology specimens as a common step for most of the cell-block preparation protocols.
(Discard the supernatant by inverting only after confirming if the sediment pellet/button is stable and compact. Specimens with blood may have loose button, in such cases the supernatant may be removed carefully by aspirating with pipette and leave small supernatant up to volume equal to the sediment volume.)
Figure 12AV marker as a guide to monitor the depth of cutting .(Reproduced from Open access publication: [20] Varsegi and Shidham; Journal of Visualized Experiments; http://www. jove. com/index/Details.stp?ID=1316
Figure 13Summary of cell-block preparation protocol for Nano NextGen CelBloking™ unit.[36] The manufacturer also has a video explaining an approach for processing multiple specimens simultaneously[36] (Courtesy: www.avbioinnovation.com)
Figure 18Cell-blocking of clot in cytology specimen. (Reproduced from Open access publication:[27] Shidham et al.; Journal of Visualized Experiments; http://www.jove.com/index/Details. stp?ID=1747
Figure 16Protocol for cell-block making with HistoGel. *HistoGel™ may also be molten with microwave in microwave safe tubes/container
(Reproduced from: Shidham and Atkinson, ‘Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Serous Fluids' Chapter #14 (Appendix 1), Elsevier (W. B. Saunders Company) First edition, 2007 (ISBN-13: 9781416001454[12])
Figure 15Protocol for plasma-thrombin method
(Reproduced from: Shidham and Atkinson, ‘Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Serous Fluids’ Chapter #14 (Appendix 1), Elsevier (W. B. Saunders Company) First edition, 2007 (ISBN-13: 9781416001454[12])
Figure 14Summary of cell-block preparation protocol for Micro NextGen CelBloking™ Unit.[38] The manufacturer also has a video explaining an approach for processing multiple specimens simultaneously[39] (Courtesy: www.AVBioInnovation.com)
Figure 19Cell-block prepared with Nano NextGen CelBloking™ unit. (a) Gel disc with preformed wells loaded with diagnostic material transferred to the tissue cassette for tissue processing. (b) Embedding of tissue processed sponge disc of Nano NextGen CelBloking™ unit with diagnostic material. The tissue paper cover is opposite the cutting surface, and the bottoms of the wells are the cutting surface. (c) The cutting surface of the final cell block with gel disc of Nano NextGen CelBloking™ unit after rough cut remove the bottom layer of the disc exposing the precisely set dark-colored AV marker which corresponds with the bottoms of the wells with concentrated diagnostic material[67]
Figure 26Comparison of the morphological details and quantitative enhancement by Micro NextGen CelBloking™ kit (Metastatic adenocarcinoma, pleural fluid). (a and b) Cell-block section with very scant cellularity (conventional random, indiscriminatory, plasma-thrombin method); (c and d) Relatively cellular cell-block section with many diagnostic cells in the wells and in small spaces in the sponge disc (cell-block prepared with enhancement method-Micro NextGen CelBloking™ kit
Figure 23Cell-block prepared with Micro NextGen CelBloking™ unit. (a) Sponge disc with preformed wells loaded with diagnostic material transferred to the tissue cassette for tissue processing. (b) Embedding of tissue processed sponge disc of Micro NextGen CelBloking™ unit with diagnostic material. The tissue paper cover is opposite the cutting surface, and the bottoms of the wells are the cutting surface. (c) The cutting surface of the final cell block with sponge disc of Micro NextGen CelBloking™ unit after rough cut removing the bottom layer of the disc exposing the precisely set dark colored AV marker which correspond with the bottoms of the wells with concentrated diagnostic material[67]
Figure 22Comparison of the morphological details and quantitative enhancement by Nano NextGen CelBloking™ kit (Metastatic adenocarcinoma, pleural fluid). (a and b) Cell-block section with very scant cellularity (conventional random, indiscriminatory, plasma-thrombin method); (c and d) very cellular cell-block section with many diagnostic cells in the wells (cell-block prepared with enhancement method-Nano NextGen CelBloking™ kit (AV BioInnovation, based on Shidham method http://www.jove.com/index/Details.stp?ID = 1316)
Figure 25(a) Final paraffin block; (b) Scanning power view of HE-stained section of cell-block prepared with Micro NextGen CelBloking™ kit. The preformed Micro sponge disc is made of the proprietary porous medium which concentrates the diagnostic cells predominantly in the wells, but the small groups of cells and singly scattered cells wandered around during concentration process may also be seen in the sponge spaces*. The sponge disc medium stains faintly. (Pleural fluid)
Figure 27Recommended to include details on Standardized Optimum Cell-block Protocol (SOCP) in cytology report
Figure 28Sample cytology report showing cell-block details
| For videos showing the methodology in detail are available free at | For videos showing the methodology in detail are available free at |
| d. Open the caps of the Nano units.[ | d. Flood the preformed sponge disc with wells and preset black AV-marker of the Micro unit with 0.5 to 1 ml of concentrated specimen with more than 50% Cytocrit/Tissuecrit (if needed it may be done multiple times till all the wells are loaded and filled to the top with the sediments) |
| e. Centrifugeϯ the Nano unit for 3 minutes at 2500 rpm to sediment the cell-tissue components in the concentrated sediment suspension in the wells of the preformed gel medium at the bottom of unit | Micro-units generally are not suitable for blood rich specimens**, which should be used after lysing the contaminant red cells in the specimen to get the red blood cell-free concentrated specimen to be cell-blocked with Nano units |
| f. Remove the tubes from centrifuge and discard the supernatant gently by inverting the contents into the discard container after opening the bigger top cap. | e. Wait for 10 minutes to let the supernatant in the concentrated specimen be adsorbed into the absorption pad of the unit and the sediments get concentrated and flattened in the wells of the sponge disc |
| g. Add a few drops (up to 1 ml) of 10% formalin gently along the wall of the Nano unit to cover the partially compacted sediments without disturbing the compacted sediments in the gel disc wells (other fixative or reagent applicable to the individual protocol may be used instead of 10% formalin) | f, g. Add a few drops of 10% formalin gently over the Microsponge disc with concentrated specimen sediments in the wells (other fixative or reagent applicable to the individual protocol may be used instead of 10% formalin) |
| h. Centrifugeϯ the Nano unit again for 3 minutes at 2500 rpm to sediment the cell-tissue components in the concentrated sediment suspension in the wells of the preformed gel medium at the bottom of the unit | h. Wait for 10 minutes to let the 10% formalin flooded over the concentrated specimen be adsorbed into the absorption pad of the unit and all of the added formalin is adsorbed into the absorption pad |
| i. Remove the tubes from centrifuge and discard the supernatant gently by inverting the contents into the discard container after opening the bigger top cap | i, j, k. Dislodge the sponge medium disc (with wells which are now filled with sedimented cell-tissue components in the concentrated sediment suspension) by gently pulling out the black carrier plate with absorption pad of the Micro unit. If needed, the sponge disc may be pushed down with the tip of transfer pipette used for that specimen into the center of labeled tissue cassette with formalin soaked tissue sponge along the bottom. The top surface of the sponge disc with mouths of the wells should be facing up |
| j. Prepare to dislodge the bottom gel disc from the unit by gently opening the small lower cap by twist opening it counterclockwise (see the arrows on the small lower cap[ | |
| k. Dislodge the gel medium disc (with wells which are now filled with sedimented cell-tissue components in the concentrated sediment suspension) by gently pushing it with the tip of transfer pipette used for that specimen into the center of labeled tissue cassette with formalin soaked tissue sponge along the bottom. Avoid the wells of the disc to be poked in by the tip of the transfer pipette. Instead push at the periphery. The top surface of the gel disc with mouths of the wells would face up |
**If the specimen has a significant proportion of blood contamination as compared to the diagnostic cell-tissue component, then treat the blood contaminated concentrated specimen with lysing reagent (ammonium chloride-based lysing reagent similar to that used for flow cytometry so that immunohistochemistry results are not affected. Acetic acid-based lysing reagents may compromise results of ancillary tests such as immunohistochemistry and should be avoided. Mix the working lysing reagent with blood contaminated concentrated specimen and let the lysis be completed by keeping at room temperature for up to 10 minutes. Then centrifuge the mixture with lysing reagent for 3 minutes at 2500 rpm to sediment the cell-tissue components in the concentrated sediment suspension. Discard the supernatant with lysed red blood cells and use the sediment with concentrated nucleated diagnostic cells to make the cell-block by adding to the Nano unit [Figure 10].
ϯThe centrifuge used should have free swiveling rotor (NOT fixed angle) with cups for 50 ml tubes. If this is not available, the centrifugation step may be replaced by gravity sedimentation by leaving the units undisturbed for 30 minutes during these steps in the refrigerator (do NOT allow to freeze). Then gently discard the supernatant with the help of transfer pipette (instead of just inverting the unit after centrifugation), because the aggregation of the sediments may not be compact by gravity alone