Although immunohistochemistry is routinely performed by many pathology laboratories, its standardization still lags behind. A major cause of variation in the reproducibility of immunohistochemical staining is induced by tissue fixation and, to a lesser degree, tissue processing. This report, stemming from the first meeting of the International Consensus Group on Standardization and Quality Control (ICGSQC) in Nice, France, summarizes the problem and suggests solutions to begin to achieve standardization of fixation and processing. Most laboratories use neutral-buffered formalin (10%) for tissue fixation which introduces cross-links, whereas coagulative fixatives are less popular. Problems with formalin fixation comprise delay of fixation and variations in the duration of the fixation mainly. Solutions to these problems could be to start fixation soon (<30 min) after surgical removal of the tissue and to avoid overfixation (>24-48 hrs). For tissue processing, the most important problem is inadequate tissue dehydration prior to paraffin embedding. This can be prevented by preparing all solutions freshly every week, depending on the volume of tissue processed. If consistently applied, these procedures could eliminate some of the sources of variation in immunohistochemical stains.

p53 is a 53-kDa nuclear protein that is associated with malignant transformation in several tumor model systems. In a survey of 134 human carcinomas, sarcomas, leukemias, and lymphomas obtained at surgery or from peripheral blood, we found rearrangements of the p53 gene only in osteogenic sarcomas (3 of 6 osteogenic sarcomas examined). Normal tissue from one of these patients had an unrearranged gene, indicating that the genetic abnormality in the tumor was acquired. Two of the sarcomas with rearranged genes expressed levels of p53 protein that were elevated relative to other tumors. Rearranged p53 genes were also found in human osteogenic sarcoma cell lines.

No abstract

We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of 10 monoclonal and two polyclonal antibodies for distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma (AdCA) using immunohistochemistry (IHC). The antibodies were directed against the mesothelial-associated antigens mesothelin, calretinin, cytokeratin 5, thrombomodulin, Wilms' tumor-1 (WT-1) gene product and HBME-1, and the nonmesothelial antigens Lewis-Y blood group (antibody BG8), MOC-31, BerEp4, CD15, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) family. The 133 tumors evaluated included 65 malignant epithelioid mesotheliomas, 22 lung AdCAs, 27 ovarian serous carcinomas, 24 breast carcinomas, and five gastric carcinomas. Diagnoses were based on clinical, histologic, ultrastructural, and/or IHC findings. Calretinin had the best sensitivity for mesothelioma (95%), followed by HBME-1 (84%), WT-1 (78%), cytokeratin 5 (76%), mesothelin (75%), and vimentin and thrombomodulin (68%). Thrombomodulin had the best specificity for mesothelioma (92%), followed by cytokeratin 5 (89%), calretinin (87%) vimentin (84%), and HBME-1 (45%). When ovarian carcinomas were excluded from the analysis, the specificity of mesothelin and WT-1 for the diagnosis of mesothelioma increased to 90 and 81%, respectively. The sensitivity of the nonmesothelial antigens for AdCA was organ dependent, with BG8 performing best in the breast cancer group (96%), and BerEp4, BG8, MOC-31 performing best in the lung cancer group (100%). The specificity of the nonmesothelial antigens for AdCA was 98% for BG8 and CEA, 97% for CD15, 95% for BerEp4, and 87% for MOC-31. A novel statistical analysis technique employing logic regression analysis identified a three-antibody immunohistochemical panel including calretinin, BG8, and MOC-31, which provided over 96% sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from AdCA.

The immunohistochemical diagnosis between epithelial mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma is currently based on the use of a panel of antibodies to adenocarcinoma-associated antigens and a few antibodies to mesothelial-associated antigens. Since the introduction of epitope retrieval methods, the sensitivity of many antibodies has been enhanced. Thus, a reevaluation of the mesothelioma/adenocarcinoma diagnostic panel becomes necessary. We studied 268 paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed tumor samples that included 57 epithelial mesotheliomas and 211 adenocarcinomas of various origins, comparing an extensive antibody panel with and without heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER). Marked increase in the sensitivity of several antibodies, with no loss of specificity, was found when HIER was used. After statistical analysis, the antibodies to the epithelial glycoproteins carcinoembryonic antigen, BerEp4, and Bg8 emerged as the best discriminators between adenocarcinoma and epithelial mesothelioma within the entire panel. The mesothelium-associated antibodies, HBME-1, calretinin, and thrombomodulin were less sensitive and less specific than the former, although they were found to be useful on certain cases. Antibodies to cytokeratins and vimentin, although of minor diagnostic value in this context, may be helpful to evaluate the quality of antigen preservation. This study confirms the value of immunohistochemistry to accurately distinguish mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma when an antibody panel approach is used. The addition of heat-induced epitope retrieval methods increases the effectiveness of the procedure and is recommended for most of the antibody panel members.