1. Academic Validation
  2. Hematoxylin and Eosin Counterstaining Protocol for Immunohistochemistry Interpretation and Diagnosis

Hematoxylin and Eosin Counterstaining Protocol for Immunohistochemistry Interpretation and Diagnosis

  • Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019 Aug;27(7):558-563. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000626.
Andrée-Anne Grosset 1 2 3 Kevin Loayza-Vega 1 2 Éloïse Adam-Granger 1 2 Mirela Birlea 1 2 Blake Gilks 4 Bich Nguyen 3 5 Geneviève Soucy 3 5 Danh Tran-Thanh 3 5 Roula Albadine 3 5 Dominique Trudel 1 2 3 5
Affiliations

Affiliations

  • 1 Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM).
  • 2 Institut du cancer de Montréal.
  • 3 Department of Pathology and Cellular Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal.
  • 4 Department of Pathology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • 5 Department of Pathology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, QC.
Abstract

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining is a well-established technique in histopathology. However, immunohistochemistry (IHC) interpretation is done exclusively with hematoxylin counterstaining. Our goal was to investigate the potential of H&E as counterstaining (H&E-IHC) to allow for visualization of a marker while confirming the diagnosis on the same slide. The quality of immunostaining and the fast-technical performance were the main criteria to select the final protocol. We stained multiple diagnostic tissues with class I IHC tests with different subcellular localization markers (anti-CK7, CK20, synaptophysin, CD20, HMB45, and Ki-67) and with double-staining on prostate tissues with anti-high molecular weight keratins/p63 (DAB detection) and p504s (Alkaline Phosphatase detection). To validate the efficacy of the counterstaining, we stained tissue microarrays from the Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (cIQc) with class II IHC tests (ER, PR, HER2, and p53 markers). Interobserver and intraobserver concordance was assessed by κ statistics. Excellent agreement of H&E-IHC interpretation was observed in comparison with standard IHC from our laboratory (κ, 0.87 to 1.00), and with the cIQc reference values (κ, 0.81 to 1.00). Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was excellent (κ, 0.89 to 1.00 and 0.87 to 1.00, respectively). We therefore show for the first time the potential of using H&E counterstaining for IHC interpretation. We recommend the H&E-IHC protocol to enhance diagnostic precision for the clinical workflow and research studies.

Figures