Cell blocks in veterinary medicine: A comparison of two methods (cell tube and agar) in 52 effusions from dogs and cats. (18th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Melega, Maverick; Santos, Marta; Caniatti, Mario; Valenti, Paola; Miniscalco, Barbara; Sulce, Majlind; Marcos, Ricardo; Riondato, Fulvio
• Is Part Of: Veterinary clinical pathology. Volume 49:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 632
• Page End: 639
• Publication Date: 2020-12-18
• Subjects: Bio‐Agar -- HistoGel -- immunohistochemistry -- pan‐cytokeratin -- vimentin; Veterinary pathology -- Periodicals; 636.089607
• DOI: 10.1111/vcp.12922
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0275-6382

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Cell blocks are alternative preparations of fluid cytological specimens. They can be used for immunochemical studies as complementary tools or when other techniques (eg, immunocytochemistry, flow cytometry) are not available. Objectives: We aimed to provide comparative morphologic, immunohistochemical, and technical features of agar‐based cell blocks (ACBs) and cell tube blocks (CTBs) from cavitary effusions. Methods: Agar‐based cell blocks and CTBs were obtained from canine and feline effusions with neoplastic/atypical cells or with packed cell volumes ≥3%. Cellularity, RBC separation, and cellular features were evaluated on digitalized H&E slides with evaluators blinded to the method. The immunohistochemical intensity and nonspecific background were assessed on pan‐cytokeratin and vimentin‐stained slides. Overall yield was calculated, and morphologic and immunohistochemical features were compared among paired samples. Technical and cellular features were also described. Results: Agar‐based cell blocks and CTBs yielded evaluable sections in 100% (52/52) and 98% (51/52) of the cases, respectively. Cellularity and RBC separation scores were significantly higher in CTBs. Similar staining intensities were observed, and background staining was more frequently seen in pan‐cytokeratin‐stained ACBs. Only basic materials and equipment were required for both methods. Agar‐based cell block preparations were more operator dependent and difficult to standardize, whereas CTBs were easier to prepare, but laboratory processing was more demanding. Conclusions: Both methods can be used to produce good sections for immunohistochemistry staining with no significant differences. Cell tube blocks are beneficial for RBC‐rich samples, and little additional training is required to prepare the blocks. Both types of cell blocks are reliable, cost‐effective methods that could be introduced in diagnostic laboratories to further characterize canine and feline effusions.