Search

Context.--There are a number of critical factors that can lead to incorrect results if the diagnostic pathologist performing immunohistochemistry is unaware of, or not vigilant about, their influence. Objective.--To highlight 3 arenas in which errors may be introduced. Data Sources.--For choosing the correct primary antibody, selection of the most appropriate antibodies for a given clinical application can be aided by obtaining information from the vendor; however, this can yield incomplete information. There are a number of online databases that have comparisons of antibodies from different vendors, particularly with respect to their use and properties. Reading the published literature can assist in this process, particularly with respect to determining antibody sensitivity and specificity, but it is a daunting task to keep up with all of the immunohistochemistry-related papers published. Finally, Web sites of a number of quality assurance organizations are accessible and can provide a wealth of information comparing the "real world" performance characteristics of different antibodies to the same target protein. False-positive signals can result from a number of factors, including the use of inappropriately high antibody concentration, and "pseudospecific" signal that is in the wrong compartment of the cell. False-negative signal can result from factors such as use of a nonoptimized epitope retrieval method. It is critical that epitope retrieval methods be optimized for each antibody employed in the laboratory. Conclusions.--By paying attention to these potential problems, the "black box" of diagnostic immunohistochemistry can be made more transparent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--Identification of the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary using immunohistochemistry is a frequent requirement of anatomic pathologists. Diagnostic accuracy is crucial, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies and smaller sample sizes. Objectives.--To provide practical guidance and suggestions for classifying carcinoma of unknown primary using both proven and new antibodies, as well as targeting panels based on integration of morphologic and clinical features. Data Sources.--Literature review, the authors' practice experience, and authors' research. Conclusions.--With well-performed and interpreted immunohistochemistry panels, anatomic pathologists can successfully identify the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary. It is crucial to understand not only the diagnostic uses of the many available antibodies but also the potential limits and pitfalls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review summarizes the three major breast-associated markers that can be of assistance in evaluating metastatic carcinomas for which a breast primary diagnosis is entertained. These markers include gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15), mammaglobin, and GATA3. The first two are cytoplasmic markers that show comparable sensitivities for breast cancer, although relatively few of the published studies have employed the same antibodies against the target molecule, making direct comparisons challenging. GATA3 is a nuclear transcription factor that shows superior sensitivity to GCDFP-15 and mammaglobin. However, the specificity of GATA3 can pose challenges, inasmuch as carcinomas of the bladder and other sites can show significant levels of positivity. Determination of the optimal panel of antibodies employed in a given clinical setting will thus depend on the non-breast tumours included in the differential diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two monoclonal antibodies (ARH1 and AKH2) were elicited with partially purified human filaggrin and characterized by immunohistochemistry on normal and abnormal skin biopsies, immunoblotting techniques, and antigen purification. Both antibodies react strongly with the granular cell layer consistent with the distribution of keratohyalin and show a more diffuse reaction with the stratum corneum in normal skin biopsies. Reaction in cultured human keratinocytes is limited to immunofluorescent granules in flattened, well-differentiated cells in confluent cultures, in which we have previously demonstrated keratohyalin. On immunoblots AKH1 reacts with filaggrin (37 kD) and profilaggrin (400 kD), while AKH2 primarily stains bands of 150 and 300 kD. The AKH2 antigens were identified in the cationic protein fraction used for immunization and were purified by gel permeation and high-performance liquid chromatography. Amino acid composition of these proteins differs only slightly from filaggrin. Immunohistochemical staining patterns of the two antibodies are very similar in the genetic disorders of keratinization tested, except for ichthyosis vulgaris, and reflect the presence and distribution of keratohyalin. In ichthyosis vulgaris, AKH1 staining is weak, consistent with the morphology and with biochemical absence of profilaggrin/filaggrin; however, AKH2 staining is positive, although weaker than normal, suggesting the presence of the AKH2 antigens even when keratohyalin is absent or abnormal. Antibodies AKH1 and AKH2 may be useful as differentiation markers for keratinization in tissues and for cells in culture. Antibody AKH1 can be used specifically for detection of profilaggrin/filaggrin in tissues, cultured keratinocytes, and extracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]