Evaluation of 5 Different Labeled Polymer Immunohistochemical Detection Systems

Applied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 90-96

  Skaland, Ivar ^a,b   Nordhus, Marit ^a   Gudlaugsson, Einar ^a,b   Klos, Jan ^a   Kjellevold, Kjell H ^a   Janssen, Emiel A M ^a   Baak, Jan P A ^a,b,c  

^a STAVANGER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Digital image analysis; Immunohistochemistry; Labeled polymer detection systems

Indexed keywords

POLYMER;

ARTICLE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES; ANTIGENS; CELL MEMBRANE; CELL NUCLEUS; CYTOPLASM; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MICE; POLYMERS; RABBITS; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 76149099889     PISSN: 15412016     EISSN: 15334058     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAI.0b013e3181b0eaad     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Sabattini E, Bisgaard K, Ascani S, et al. The EnVision++ system: a new immunohistochemical method for diagnostics and research. Critical comparison with the APAAP, ChemMate, CSA, LABC, and SABC techniques. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:506-511.
2. Vosse BA, Seelentag W, Bachmann A, et al. Background staining of visualization systems in immunohistochemistry: comparison of the Avidin-Biotin Complex system and the EnVision+ system. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15:103-107.
3. Vyberg M, Nielsen S. Dextran polymer conjugate two-step visualization system for immunohistochemistry: a comparison of envision with two three-step avidin-biotin techniques. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morph. 1998;6:3-10.
4. Petrosyan K, Tamayo R, Joseph D. Sensitivity of a novel biotin-free detection reagent (Powervision+TM) for immunohistochemistry. J Histotechnol. 2002;25:247-250.
5. Ramos-Vara JA, Miller MA. Comparison of two polymer-based immunohistochemical detection systems: ENVISION+ and Imm- PRESS. J Microsc. 2006;224:135-139.
6. Wong SC, Chan JK, Lo ES, et al. The contribution of bifunctional SkipDewax pretreatment solution, rabbit monoclonal antibodies, and polymer detection systems in immunohistochemistry. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1047-1055.
7. Taylor CR, Levenson RM. Quantification of immunohistochemistry- issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II. Histopathology. 2006;49:411-424.
8. Leong AS. Quantitation in immunohistology: fact or fiction? A discussion of variables that influence results. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2004;12:1-7.
9. von Wasielewski R, Mengel M, Wiese B, et al. Tissue array technology for testing interlaboratory and interobserver reproducibility of immunohistochemical estrogen receptor analysis in a large multicenter trial. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:675-682.
10. Skaland I, Ovestad I, Janssen EA, et al. Digital image analysis improves the quality of subjective HER-2 expression scoring in breast cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2008;16: 185-190.
11. Bloom K, Harrington D. Enhanced accuracy and reliability of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical scoring using digital microscopy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121:620-630.
12. Rhodes A, Borthwick D, Sykes R, et al. The use of cell line standards to reduce HER-2/neu assay variation in multiple European cancer centers and the potential of automated image analysis to provide for more accurate cut points for predicting clinical response to trastuzumab. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122:51-60.
13. Grube D. Constants and variables in immunohistochemistry. Arch Histol Cytol. 2004;67:115-134.
14. Sompuram SR, Kodela V, Zhang K, et al. A novel quality control slide for quantitative immunohistochemistry testing. J Histochem Cytochem. 2002;50:1425-1434.