Background: Cell blocks (CBs) are an essential adjunct in cytopathology practice. The aim of this study was to compare 2 techniques of CB preparation – plasma thrombin (PT) method with sodium alginate (SA) method for overall cellularity, morphological preservation, obscuring artefacts, immunocytochemistry (ICC), suitability for molecular analysis, and cost of preparation. Design: A total of 80 fine-needle aspirates from various sites and serous effusion samples were included. Of these cases, by random selection, 40 each were prepared by PT method and SA methods, respectively. The haematoxylin-eosin-stained sections from the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded CBs from both methods were evaluated in a blinded fashion by 2 cytopathologists and scored for cellularity, artefacts, and morphological preservation and analysed by χ2 test with Yates correction. We evaluated 6 cases from each method by ICC for a range of membrane, cytoplasmic and nuclear marker expression. DNA was extracted from four cases to evaluate their utility for molecular analysis. Results: CB sections from PT and SA techniques showed comparable cellularity and excellent cytomorphological preservation. Blue gel-like artefacts were common in the SA technique but did not interfere with morphological evaluation. ICC staining results were also similar. DNA yield and utility for PCR were also comparable. The SA-CB cost half that of PT-CB (USD 0.4 vs. USD 1). Conclusion: SA technique of CB preparation is an excellent low-cost alternative to PT method for CB preparation.

Keywords:
Cell block, Sodium alginate, Plasma thrombin, Immunocytochemistry
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
2021
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.