Difference between revisions of "Immunohistochemical staining"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 40: Line 40:
#*A combination of the above.
#*A combination of the above.


Generally, interpretations can be subjective, and this is especially true when the staining is weak and focal. In other words, "... your weak [positive] stain might be somebody else’s negative."<ref>URL: [http://bitesizebio.com/articles/immunohistochemistry-getting-the-stain-you-want/ http://bitesizebio.com/articles/immunohistochemistry-getting-the-stain-you-want/]. Accessed on: 1 September 2012.</ref> This is often reflected in publications reporting contradictory results regarding the rates of positivity for stains in different tumours, even if the methods uses are identical.
Generally, interpretations can be subjective, and this is especially true when the staining is weak and focal. In other words, "... your weak [positive] stain might be somebody else’s negative."<ref>URL: [http://bitesizebio.com/articles/immunohistochemistry-getting-the-stain-you-want/ http://bitesizebio.com/articles/immunohistochemistry-getting-the-stain-you-want/]. Accessed on: 1 September 2012.</ref>  


The cynical might say it is unwritten rule that: "... if the stain is weak and focal it can be anything you want to make it -- positive or negative -- so it fits perfectly with your diagnosis!"
The cynical might say it is unwritten rule that: "... if the stain is weak and focal it can be anything you want to make it -- positive or negative -- so it fits perfectly with your diagnosis!"
Line 46: Line 46:
In cases where the morphology is unclear, it is judicious to have two or more immunostains that support the diagnosis, and negative stains for important entities in the differential diagnosis.
In cases where the morphology is unclear, it is judicious to have two or more immunostains that support the diagnosis, and negative stains for important entities in the differential diagnosis.


One third pathologists substantially overestimate the diagnostic significance of unexpected immunohistochemical staining results.<ref name=pmid21660231>{{Cite journal  | last1 = Galloway | first1 = M. | title = Base-rate error in the interpretation of immunohistochemistry. | journal = Patholog Res Int | volume = 2011 | issue =  | pages = 636495 | month =  | year = 2011 | doi = 10.4061/2011/636495 | PMID = 21660231 }}</ref>
Publications with contradicting result are not uncommon. Differences arise from th interpretation, processing protocol and antibody clone.
 
According to Galloway, one third pathologists substantially overestimate the diagnostic significance of unexpected immunohistochemical staining results.<ref name=pmid21660231>{{Cite journal  | last1 = Galloway | first1 = M. | title = Base-rate error in the interpretation of immunohistochemistry. | journal = Patholog Res Int | volume = 2011 | issue =  | pages = 636495 | month =  | year = 2011 | doi = 10.4061/2011/636495 | PMID = 21660231 }}</ref>


==General (malignant) differential diagnosis==
==General (malignant) differential diagnosis==
48,830

edits

Navigation menu