Antigens under cover-The preservation and demasking of selected antigens for successful poststaining immunocytochemistry of effusion, brain smears, and lymph node aspirates

Detection of Lymphoid Markers (CD3 and PAX5) for Immunophenotyping in Dogs and Cats: Comparison of Stained Cytology Slides and Matched Cell Blocks

Immunolabeling on Romanowsky-stained cytology (RSC) slides can be used, although there is limited evidence of its suitability for phenotyping canine and feline lymphomas. A comparison with matched cell blocks (CB) is missing. Immunolabeling on RSC and CB was compared for lymphoid markers (CD3 and PAX5) in 53 lymphomas and 4 chylous effusions from dogs and cats. The influence of pre-analytical variables (species, time of archive, type of specimens and coverslipping) and the interobserver agreement among the 2 observers was assessed. Fewer CD3+ lymphocytes were identified in RSC, while the PAX5 positivity by RSC and CB had a substantial agreement. Immunodetection of CD3 and the diagnosis of a T-cell population on RSC was more difficult. Lower intensity and higher background were noted in RSC. Immunophenotyping was inconclusive in 54% RSC and 19% CB. The interobserver reproducibility of immunophenotyping on CB was substantial, being higher than in RSC. The immunolabeling performance on the RSC of effusion and feline samples was unsatisfactory. The detection of lymphoid markers, especially membranous antigens in retrospective RSC, is affected by the pre-analytical variables: species, time of the archive, and type of specimens. CB are a more consistent type of sample for immunophenotyping purposes.

2022 AAFP/EveryCat Feline Infectious Peritonitis Diagnosis Guidelines

CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is one of the most important infectious diseases and causes of death in cats; young cats less than 2 years of age are especially vulnerable. FIP is caused by a feline coronavirus (FCoV). It has been estimated that around 0.3% to 1.4% of feline deaths at veterinary institutions are caused by FIP.

SCOPE

This document has been developed by a Task Force of experts in feline clinical medicine as the 2022 AAFP/EveryCat Feline Infectious Peritonitis Diagnosis Guidelines to provide veterinarians with essential information to aid their ability to recognize cats presenting with FIP.

TESTING AND INTERPRETATION

Nearly every small animal veterinary practitioner will see cases. FIP can be challenging to diagnose owing to the lack of pathognomonic clinical signs or laboratory changes, especially when no effusion is present. A good understanding of each diagnostic test's sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, likelihood ratio and diagnostic accuracy is important when building a case for FIP. Before proceeding with any diagnostic test or commercial laboratory profile, the clinician should be able to answer the questions of 'why this test?' and 'what do the results mean?' Ultimately, the approach to diagnosing FIP must be tailored to the specific presentation of the individual cat.

RELEVANCE

Given that the disease is fatal when untreated, the ability to obtain a correct diagnosis is critical. The clinician must consider the individual patient's history, signalment and comprehensive physical examination findings when selecting diagnostic tests and sample types in order to build the index of suspicion 'brick by brick'. Research has demonstrated efficacy of new antivirals in FIP treatment, but these products are not legally available in many countries at this time. The Task Force encourages veterinarians to review the literature and stay informed on clinical trials and new drug approvals.

Doing more with less: multiple uses of a single slide in veterinary cytology. A practical approach

Veterinary cytology faced a remarkable evolution in the last 15 years, in part due to increase recognition of the advantages of the cytology by veterinary clinicians. Simultaneously, there has been a growing awareness by the owners about the importance of a complete diagnostic workup aimed at defining a proper treatment protocol. With the extended use of cytology, challenging diagnostic cases are more frequent, and more clinically useful answers are requested. In this scenario, the use of cytology specimens to perform ancillary techniques is a valid approach. Rather than being simply archived, cytology slides can be a valuable source and a good platform to carry out cytochemistry, immunocytochemistry, and molecular techniques. Therefore, several diagnostic techniques can be applied in tiny samples, thus following the "doing more with less" principle. The aim of this approach is to refine the cytologic diagnosis and provide additional prognostic and therapeutic information. Herein, we detailed this principle in veterinary cytology and reviewed the use of cytology specimens for ancillary techniques as a single procedure, i.e., using the whole slide, or multiple procedures, i.e., multiple procedures applied in the same slide.

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

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.

Antigens under cover-The preservation and demasking of selected antigens for successful poststaining immunocytochemistry of effusion, brain smears, and lymph node aspirates

Background

In clinical cytology, the applicability of an ancillary test such as immunocytochemistry is too often limited by low sample volume, poor cell representation, and sample preservation. Diagnosticians often read Romanowsky‐stained cytology, although specific techniques such as immunocytochemistry are often essential for a definitive diagnosis.

Objectives

The goal of the present study aimed to investigate if immunocytochemistry on previously‐stained cytologic specimens was possible. Different pretreatments were examined to determine which treatment preserved antigenicity best.

Methods

One hundred and twenty‐two impression smears and 64 fine‐needle aspirate preparations of brain and lymph nodes were processed and evaluated microscopically. The impact of staining cytologic preparations with a modified Wright's stain, using a destaining method, performing a coverslipping and decoverslipping process, and subjecting smears to a microwave treatment (MWT) were examined for the immunolabeling of selected nuclear, cytoplasmic, and plasmalemmal antigens, as well as intracellular feline coronavirus (FCoV). Biotinylated secondary antibodies were used, and the bound primary antibody was visualized using an ABC amplification kit.

Results

Cellular antigens were reliably detected with immunocytochemistry after smears were stained with a Romansky stain and were coverslipped early after staining and stayed coverslipped until immediately before immunolabeling. The staining intensity reached the same levels as that of the controls if the films underwent MWT in citrate buffer. In contrast, FCoV antigen detection was abolished after any physicochemical interference.

Conclusions

Poststaining immunocytochemistry represents a practical tool for additional investigations on prestained cytologic specimens when searching for cellular antigens. Paired untreated samples should be kept in case the workup requires testing for more vulnerable viral antigens.