48,452
edits
Difference between revisions of "Immunohistochemical staining"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Interpretation
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
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> | 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 an 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!" | ||
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. | ||
Publications with contradicting result are not uncommon. Differences arise from | Publications with contradicting result are not uncommon. Differences arise from the 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> | 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> | ||