Novel dual-function CellDetect® staining technology: wedding morphology and tinctorial discrimination to detect cervical neoplasia
1 Zetiq Technologies Ltd., Ramat Gan, Israel
2 LEM Pathology Laboratory, Nes Ziona, Israel
3 Molecular Pathology Unit, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel, affiliated with Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University
Citation and License
Diagnostic Pathology 2010, 5:70 doi:10.1186/1746-1596-5-70Published: 11 November 2010
A persistent goal of oncologic histochemistry is to microscopically identify neoplasia tinctorially. Consequently, the newly developed CellDetect® staining technology, that appears to exhibit this property, warrants clinical evaluation. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic results using CellDetect® to the outcomes of standard microscopic examination based on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining for the recognition of different squamous epithelial phenotypes of the uterine cervix.
Pairs of adjacent sections were made from 60 cervical biopsy cases that were diagnosed originally as either normal or neoplastic (CIN, SCC). One section of the pair was stained for H&E; the second section, with CellDetect®. Based on the examination of these pairs by two experienced pathologists, we investigated the following issues:(1) diagnostic agreement between the pathologists on each pair; (2) agreement between H&E and CellDetect® for each pair (3) tinctorial characteristics in micro-regions (n = 130) evaluated as either normal, reactive or neoplastic.
Qualitatively, CellDetect®-stained preparations displayed cyto-morphological detail comparable to H&E images. Tinctorially, non-neoplastic cells appeared green/blue when stained withCellDetect®, contrasting with cytologically neoplastic foci, where cells of every grade were red/magenta in color. Due to these tinctorial characteristics, even small foci of neoplasia could be readily distinguished that were inconspicuous on H&E at low magnification. In some instances, this prompted re-examination of the H&E and revision of the diagnosis. Quantitatively, we found that despite diagnostic variation between pathologists, in about 3% of the cases, each pathologist made the same diagnosis regardless of whether CellDetect® or H&E was used, i.e. there was 100% self-agreement for each pathologist between stains. Particularly noteworthy was the finding of a 0% false negative rate, coupled with a 10-15% false positive rate. Regarding specificity, the performance in reactive squamous processes was similar to that observed for morphologically normal squamous epithelium.
In this first order assessment of clinical applicability, CellDetect® staining technology was at least comparable to results using H&E, and perhaps surperior. CellDetect® provided a uniquely useful tinctorial clue for the detection of neoplasia, which exhibited an impressive 0% false negative rate. A more extensive, blinded study is needed to confirm these promising findings.