Automated Cellient™ cytoblocks: better, stronger, faster?
Abstract
Objective
Cytoblocks (CBs), or cell blocks, provide additional morphological detail and a platform for immunocytochemistry (ICC) in cytopathology. The Cellient™ system produces CBs in 45 minutes using methanol fixation, compared with traditional CBs, which require overnight formalin fixation. This study compares Cellient and traditional CB methods in terms of cellularity, morphology and immunoreactivity, evaluates the potential to add formalin fixation to the Cellient method for ICC studies and determines the optimal sectioning depth for maximal cellularity in Cellient CBs.
Methods
One hundred and sixty CBs were prepared from 40 cytology samples (32 malignant, eight benign) using four processing methods: (A) traditional; (B) Cellient (methanol fixation); (C) Cellient using additional formalin fixation for 30 minutes; (D) Cellient using additional formalin fixation for 60 minutes. Haematoxylin and eosin-stained sections were assessed for cellularity and morphology. ICC was assessed on 14 cases with a panel of antibodies. Three additional Cellient samples were serially sectioned to determine the optimal sectioning depth. Scoring was performed by two independent, blinded reviewers.
Results
For malignant cases, morphology was superior with Cellient relative to traditional CBs (P < 0.001). Cellularity was comparable across all methods. ICC was excellent in all groups and the addition of formalin at any stage during the Cellient process did not influence the staining quality. Serial sectioning through Cellient CBs showed optimum cellularity at 30–40 μm with at least 27 sections obtainable.
Conclusions
Cellient CBs provide superior morphology to traditional CBs and, if required, formalin fixation may be added to the Cellient process for ICC. Optimal Cellient CB cellularity is achieved at 30–40 μm, which will impact on the handling of cases in daily practice.
