| Literature DB >> 35757604 |
Supinda Koonmee1,2,3, Sakkarn Sangkhamanon1,2,3, Piyapharom Intarawichian1,2,3, Chaiwat Aphivatanasiri1,2,3, Waritta Kunprom1,2,3, Prakasit Sa-Ngiamwibool1,2,3, Suwit Balthaisong1,2,3, Chitsakul Phuyao1,2,3, Piya Prajumwongs1,2,3, Reza Alaghehbandan4, Malinee Thanee1,2,3.
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the most prevalent malignancy in Thailand, with unfortunate late diagnosis and frequent metastatic disease outcomes. An accurate tissue diagnosis is the first and most important step in the treatment of CCA. Tissue quality and preservation during the pre-analytical phase play major roles in the proper histological evaluation and potential biomarker testing. This study evaluated the impact of using the "Cholangiocarcinoma Screening and Care Program (CASCAP)" container, as an innovative tool to address pre-analytical challenges faced by pathology laboratories in Thailand. This is a comparison study examining the quality of CCA specimens using the CASCAP container vs. the conventional method, using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). CCA tissue quality using the CASCAP container significantly reduced artifact deposition while improving the cellular structure and nuclear and cytoplasmic morphologies. The immunohistochemical expression of cytokeratin 19 (CK19), a prognostic marker in CCA, significantly improved in the CASCAP container group in comparison with the conventional method. This innovation is proven to significantly enhance the CCA tissue quality diagnostics and prognostic biomarker testing, hence improving overall cancer care, diagnosis, and treatment in Thailand.Entities:
Keywords: cholangiocarcinoma; histopathology; immunohistochemistry; pre-analytical phase; tissue preservation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35757604 PMCID: PMC9231639 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.792847
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Experimental process.
Criteria of histomorphology assessment.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Formalin pigment artifact deposition (FPAD) ( | The number of formalin pigment artifact deposition was counted following shown in previous observations. |
| Cellular structure morphology ( | Percentage of cellular structure distortion or shrinkage appeared in CCA area |
| Nuclear morphology ( | Percentage of good nuclear detail Two of three nuclear detail; absent chromatin, absent nucleoli, blur was decided bad nuclear detail in CCA area |
| Cytoplasm morphology ( | Percentage of eosinophilic staining cytoplasm appeared in CCA area |
Bad nuclear detail was observed and decided.
Baseline clinicopathological characteristics of the cohort.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Age (year) (mean ± SEM) | 68 ± 2 | 67 ± 1.8 |
|
| ||
| Female | 1 | 2 |
| Male | 9 | 8 |
|
| ||
| Intrahepatic CCA | 3 | 5 |
| Perihilar CCA | 6 | 2 |
| Extrahepatic CCA | 1 | 3 |
| Tumor size (cm) (mean ± SEM) | 4.3 ± 0.6 (range, 2.5–8) | 7.2 ± 0.7 |
|
| ||
| Intraductal growth | 6 | 4 |
| Periductal infiltrating growth | 2 | 0 |
| Mass forming growth | 2 | 6 |
|
| ||
| Papillary | 5 | 7 |
| Tubular | 5 | 3 |
|
| ||
| Well | 9 | 8 |
| Moderate | 1 | 2 |
| Poorly | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||
| Stage 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Stage I | 0 | 0 |
| Stage II | 2 | 1 |
| Stage III | 4 | 4 |
| Stage IV | 0 | 0 |
| Cold ischemic time (minute), (mean ± SEM) | - | 62 ± 5.7 |
| Fixative duration (hour) | 24 | 24 |
Eighth edition The American Joint Committee on Cancer.
Mean ± SEM was used in this study.
Fixative duration was regulated at 24 h in two methods.
Figure 2Histopathology of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) tissues using H&E staining by the two methods, conventional (CV) and new [Cholangiocarcinoma Screening and Care Program (CASCAP)] methods. A comparison of CCA tissue morphologies with staining and structural quality between CV and CASCAP methods. Yellow arrow; formalin pigment artifact deposition (FPAD); Red: cellular structure; green and blue: nuclear and cytoplasm morphologies (A). The numbers of FPAD in 10 fields/slide and the percentage of each phenotype, such as structural distortion, nuclear details, and eosinophilic staining cytoplasm were determined and shown as mean ± SEM (B). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical assessment of cytoplasmic CK19 intensities in CCA tissue sections from 0 to +3 (A). Percentages of each cytokeratin 19 (CK19) intensities between conventional method (CV) and new methods (CASCAP) (B). Data are shown as mean ± SEM, **p < 0.01.
Figure 4The expression levels of CK19 in total cases were categorized by the median of H-score (175) including low (H-score < 175) and high CK19 (H-score ≥ 175) (A,B). The individual category of CK19 levels in each method (C,D) were present as mean ± SEM. **p < 0.01.
Association of CK19 staining between new (CASCAP) and conventional (CV) methods.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Conventional | 58 | 42 | 100 | 0.007 |
| CASCAP | 39 | 61 | 100 | |
| Total | 97 | 103 | 200 | |
Comparison of CK19 levels between new (CASCAP) and conventional (CV) methods.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
| Conventional | 156.7 ± 5.33 | 150 | 43 | 57 |
| CASCAP | 181.9 ± 6.17 | 180 | 50 | 50 |
p < 0.001.
Comparison of CK19 level and gap between subgroup of new (CASCAP) and conventional (CV) methods.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Conventional | 134.5 ± 6.81 | 178.9 ± 6.95 | 156.7 ± 5.33 | ≈44.4 |
| CASCAP | 150.9 ± 8.13 | 212.9 ± 6.96 | 181.9 ± 6.17 | ≈62 |
| Average | 142.7 ± 5.33 | 195.9 ± 5.18 | ||
Figure 5Comparison of low and high CK19 signals between conventional (CV) and new (CASCAP) methods was demonstrated as dot plot. CASCAP, H-score < 180 as low and H-score ≥ 180 as high and CV, H-score < 150 as low and H-score ≥ 150 as high. *p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.001.