两种免疫组化仪染色质量的配对设计对比研究

    Comparison Between Two Immunohistochemistry Systems: A Paired-Design Quality Assessment Study

    • 摘要:
      目的 对比新型国产全自动高通量免疫组化仪与进口主流全自动免疫组化仪的染色质量。
      方法 采用配对设计原则,选择94例同一蜡块切片,使用相同抗体(同公司、克隆号、批次,包括Ki-67、ALK、Her-2、TTF-1、CK5/6、CEA、P53等54种抗体),分别采用国产仪器(百盛BMark-02)及进口仪器(Roche BenchMark ULTRA)进行染色,免疫组化(immunohistochemistry,IHC)着色部位覆盖细胞核、细胞浆、细胞膜,从总体优良率、分布均匀、染色背景、染色强度、定位准确、边缘效应、非特异性着色等维度评估染色质量。
      结果 两种仪器染色总体质量分类比较,两分类(达标、未达标)组间分布无统计学差异(国产组达标率94.7% vs. 进口组达标率97.9%, P=0.25),三分类(优秀、良好、需改进)组间分布有统计学差异(国产组优秀率21.3%/良好率73.4% vs. 进口组优秀率59.6%/良好率38.3%,P<0.001);国产仪器与进口仪器详细比较如下:染色强度(97.9% vs. 97.9%)与无边缘效应(89.4% vs. 96.8%)无差异(P>0.05),染色均匀(70.2% vs. 86.2%)、背景干净(61.7% vs. 78.7%)、定位准确(70.2% vs. 92.6%)、无非特异性着色(47.9% vs. 86.2%)比较有统计学差异(P<0.05);以进口仪器作为“金标准”,使用受试者工作曲线(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)检验国产仪器的效价,曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)背景干净为0.79795%可信区间(confidence interval,CI)0.688~0.905,P<0.001、染色均匀为0.818(95%CI 0.693~0.943,P<0.001)、定位准确为0.879(95%CI 0.803~0.955,P=0.001)、无非特异性染色为0.778(95%CI 0.679~0.877,P=0.001)。
      结论 国产仪器的总体达标率与进口仪器相当,在染色强度、无边缘效应方面二者无显著差异,能保证染色结果的准确与稳定,可以满足临床病理诊断的需要,但在染色均匀、背景干净、定位准确及无非特异性染色方面需要进一步优化。

       

      Abstract:
      Objective  To compare the staining quality between a novel domestic automatic high-throughput immunohistochemistry (IHC) system and an established imported automated IHC system.
      Methods  Using a paired-design, 94 consecutive tissue sections from identical paraffin blocks were stained with identical primary antibodies (same manufacturer, clone, and batch; total 54 antibodies including Ki-67, ALK, HER2, TTF-1, CK5/6, CEA, and p53, et al.). Staining patterns covered nucleus, cytoplasm and cell membrane. The domestic system (Baisheng BMark-02 automatic immunohistochemical system) was compared against the imported system (Roche BenchMark ULTRA automatic immunohistochemical system) across seven quality parameters: overall good-to-excellent rate, staining uniformity, background clarity, staining intensity, localization accuracy, edge effect, and non-specific staining.
      Results  In overall quality assessment, the overall pass rates (staining quality meeting diagnostic standards) were comparable between systems (domestic: 94.7% vs. imported: 97.9%, P = 0.25), However, three-tier quality grading (excellent/good/need-to-improve) revealed significant distribution differences (domestic: excellent 21.3%/good 73.4% vs. imported: excellent 59.6%/good 38.3%; P < 0.001). While the domestic system matched the imported system in staining intensity (97.9% for both) and absence of edge effects (89.4% vs. 96.8%; P>0.05), it showed statistically inferior performance in staining uniformity (70.2% vs. 86.2%), background clarity (61.7% vs. 78.7%), localization accuracy (70.2% vs. 92.6%), and non-specific staining (47.9% vs. 86.2%) (all P < 0.05). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis using imported system as gold standard domonstrated good concordance of these two systems: staining uniformity area under the curve (AUC)=0.818, 95%(confidence interval, CI) 0.693~0.943; P < 0.001; background clarity (AUC=0.797, 95%CI 0.688~0.905; P < 0.001); localization accuracy (AUC=0.879, 95%CI 0.803~0.955; P = 0.001); and non-specific staining (AUC=0.778, 95%CI 0.679~0.877; P = 0.001).
      Conclusion  The domestic IHC system achieves comparable overall pass rates and matches the imported IHC system in staining intensity and absence of edge effect, demonstrating capability to deliver accurate and stable results for clinical utility for pathological diagnosis. Further optimization is warranted for staining uniformity, background clarity, localization accuracy, and non-specific staining reduction.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回