E-submission
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > J Pathol Transl Med > Volume 49(3); 2015 > Article
-
Original Article
Proposal of an Appropriate Decalcification Method of Bone Marrow Biopsy Specimens in the Era of Expanding Genetic Molecular Study - Sung-Eun Choi, Soon Won Hong, Sun Och Yoon
-
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2015;49(3):236-242.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2015.03.16
Published online: May 15, 2015
Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Corresponding Author Sun Och Yoon, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: +82-2-2228-1763 Fax: +82-2-2227-7939 E-mail: revita@naver.com
• Received: January 27, 2015 • Revised: February 24, 2015 • Accepted: March 16, 2015
© 2015 The Korean Society of Pathologists/The Korean Society for Cytopathology
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
-
Background:
- The conventional method for decalcification of bone specimens uses hydrochloric acid (HCl) and is notorious for damaging cellular RNA, DNA, and proteins, thus complicating molecular and immunohistochemical analyses. A method that can effectively decalcify while preserving genetic material is necessary.
-
Methods:
- Pairs of bilateral bone marrow biopsies sampled from 53 patients were decalcified according to protocols of two comparison groups: EDTA versus HCl and RDO GOLD (RDO) versus HCl. Pairs of right and left bone marrow biopsy samples harvested from 28 cases were allocated into the EDTA versus HCl comparison group, and 25 cases to the RDO versus HCl comparison group. The decalcification protocols were compared with regards to histomorphology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular analysis. For molecular analysis, we randomly selected 5 cases from the EDTA versus HCl and RDO versus HCl groups.
-
Results:
- The decalcification time for appropriate histomorphologic analysis was the longest in the EDTA method and the shortest in the RDO method. EDTA was superior to RDO or HCl in DNA yield and integrity, assessed via DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction, and silver in situ hybridization using DNA probes. The EDTA method maintained intact nuclear protein staining on immunohistochemistry, while the HCl method produced poor quality images. Staining after the RDO method had equivocal results. RNA in situ hybridization using kappa and lambda RNA probes measured RNA integrity; the EDTA and RDO method had the best quality, followed by HCl.
-
Conclusions:
- The EDTA protocol would be the best in preserving genetic material. RDO may be an acceptable alternative when rapid decalcification is necessary.
- This was a prospective study. To eliminate bias due to variables among cases, cases were enrolled when pairs of bilaterally biopsied bone marrow specimens were available. Among bone marrow specimens sampled from the right and left iliac crests between January 2013 and July 2014 at Gangnam Severance Hospital, 53 cases were finally included. For the 53 selected cases, 28 right and left bone marrow samples were allocated to the EDTA (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) protocol and HCl (Calci-Clear Rapid, National Diagnostics, Atlanta, GA, USA) protocol, respectively. Samples from the 25 remaining cases were assigned to the RDO GOLD (RDO) group (Apex Engineering Products Corporation, Aurora, IL, USA) protocol and HCl protocol. Concentration, processing time, and temperature are summarized in Table 1.
- To test DNA quality, five cases were randomly selected from each of the three groups (EDTA, HCl, and RDO). DNA was extracted, and the quantity and quality were confirmed using NanoDrop ND-2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). The BRAF PNA clamping method (Panagene, Daejeon, Korea) and comparison with Ct values of internal controls were used to evaluate the efficacy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNA amplification. To evaluate the efficacy of DNA in situ hybridization, HER2 dual color silver in situ hybridization (Ventana, Tucson, AZ, USA) was applied to 10 pairs of bone marrow samples. RNA in situ hybridization and immunohistochemical studies were performed prospectively. According to the potential differential diagnoses for suspicious lesions observed within bone marrow, appropriate RNA probes or protein antibodies were applied. For immunohistochemistry, the following primary antibodies were used and the details are summarized in Table 2: cyclin D1, Ki67, Bcl2, Bcl6, TdT, CD138, CD20, CD79a, CD3, CD5, CD23, CD10, CD30, and myeloperoxidase. To state the process, after deparaffinization and rehydration, the sections were incubated in BenchMark XT automated slide stainer (Ventana) for 16 minutes at 37°C and then counterstained with hematoxylin reagent. Two pathologists reviewed the hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridization slides. The quality of immunohistochemistry and RNA in situ hybridization were assessed using a 3-tiered grading scale: good, equivocal, or poor. HER2 silver in situ hybridization was assessed by detecting two signals of HER2 and CEP17 per nucleus from the normal hematopoietic cells of bone marrow.
- The differences in variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. All statistical analyses were carried out by SPSS ver. 20.0 for Windows (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Isolated DNA quality
- DNA quantity, purity, and Ct values of internal controls after real-time PCR in the EDTA versus HCl group and RDO versus HCl group are depicted in Table 3 and Fig. 1. Although differences were not statistically significant, the DNA yield of the EDTA protocol was about 2 times higher than the HCl protocol. In addition, the Ct value of the former protocol was significantly lower than that of the latter (p<.001) with the estimated difference being about 7. Furthermore, the Ct values of EDTA processed samples were lower than 30, demonstrating that the amount of intact DNA feasible for PCR with the EDTA protocol is better preserved by a factor of 2 [7] than the HCl protocol.
- There were no significant differences between DNA yield and Ct values of RDO and HCl methods. The yield of extracted DNA after RDO decalcification was similar to that of HCl. The Ct values of both protocols were above 33, indicating that the amount of intact DNA feasible for PCR was very small.
- Morphological comparison of DNA, RNA, and protein expression
- The morphological comparison and quality assessment of H&E stain, HER2/CEP17 dual color silver in situ hybridization, kappa/lambda in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry studies were analyzed. The rates of high quality staining for each study were compared between the three protocols. The results are summarized in Table 4.
- There was no difficulty in microtome dissection of 4 µm or less in thickness in any of the three methods. The morphological quality of H&E slide was similar in all three protocols, showing well-preserved histological features of the bone marrow (Fig. 2).
- All five cases in the RDO versus HCl group had severe DNA breakdown on HER2/CEP17 dual color silver in situ hybridization, revealing no HER2 or CEP17 nuclear signal in bone marrow hematopoietic cells. However, in the EDTA versus HCl group, all 5 cases in the EDTA protocol showed two HER2 and CEP17 nuclear signals from almost all of the hematopoietic cells, whereas nearly no nuclear signal was detected in samples from the HCl protocol (Fig. 3).
- Bone marrow specimens from the EDTA and RDO protocols that underwent kappa/lambda RNA in situ hybridization showed well preserved RNA signal in the nuclei of plasma cells, while those in the HCl group had severe breakdown of RNA signals (Fig. 4).
- Nuclear proteins such as Ki67, cyclin D1, and TdT were relatively better preserved on immunohistochemistry with both EDTA and RDO protocols, while samples from the HCl protocol showed breakdown and lower quality of nuclear protein staining (Fig. 5A–H). Immunohistochemistry targeting the cytoplasmic membrane or cytoplasmic CD markers was well preserved in all three protocols (Fig. 5I–L).
RESULTS
- There have been several studies comparing several types of decalcification protocols to date. Some retrospective studies compared the morphology of in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry by using stored tissues containing bone. Other studies extracted nucleic acid from stored tissues containing bone and compared the quantity, purity, and Ct value of the DNA and/or RNA after real-time PCR [1-4]. Few studies have used specimens sampled with diagnostic purpose in clinical practice. We investigated the quality of nucleic acid and protein in decalcified bone marrow tissue employing several types of genetic tools, immunohistochemistry, and morphological assessments. In addition, we compared the effect of decalcification protocol while limiting bias variance, which may be caused by sampling from different patients and cell degeneration from long-term storage. We prospectively investigated pairs of bone marrow biopsy specimens from the same patients sampled for diagnostic purposes in a clinical setting. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies utilizing clinical samples to assess decalcification protocols.
- We compared the conventional protocol using HCl, the well-known alternative protocol using EDTA, and the new protocol using RDO.
- All three methods had equally good performance with respect to microtome dissection and preservation of cytomorphologic and histomorphologic features. The EDTA protocol was superior in preserving nucleic acid (DNA and RNA), allowing for the feasibility of genetic studies, such as real time PCR and in situ hybridization. The EDTA protocol would be an appropriate option for genetic studies in bone-contained tissues. The present study also confirmed that the HCl protocols are inappropriate for genetic studies due to the severe damage of genetic material. The quality of nucleic acids in the RDO group was equivocal, but this method also didn’t seem to be suitable for genetic studies. In immunohistochemistry targeting nuclear protein, both EDTA and RDO were relatively superior to the HCl protocol. All three methods showed intact staining in immunohistochemistry targeting cytoplasmic membranes or cytoplasm. EDTA protocols seem to be the most appropriate in that comprehensive immunohistochemical stains can be applied to the specimens processed by this protocol. The feasibility of immunohistochemistry using specimens processed with the HCl protocol would be limited in many cases, especially when immunostaining for nuclear proteins is necessary. Immunohistochemical markers can be more widely applied in samples processed with the RDO protocol than with the HCl protocol, but diagnostic options are still more limited than the EDTA protocol.
- In this study, the EDTA protocol was the most feasible method for several types of genetic studies and immunohistochemistry. Such advantages of EDTA decalcification protocol are already widely known [1,5-7]. The present study confirms again the superiority of the EDTA protocol in a wide range of ancillary tests for pathologic diagnosis. The potential of the RDO protocol is higher than the conventional HCl protocol; however, it is not superior to the EDTA protocol and thus, it cannot be considered an alternative to EDTA protocols, particularly when genetic studies are needed.
- When choosing decalcification agents, cost-effectiveness and turn-around time from biopsy to final pathologic diagnosis are important issues. HCl costs less and requires less time than using EDTA. Small bone tissues like bone marrow take about three to twenty four hours for decalcification in EDTA protocol, but most of the other bone specimens need more time when using the same protocol. RDO protocols can shorten decalcification time, but this agent is also expensive.
- In many cases, bone biopsies are needed for diagnosis of hematologic cancer, metastatic tumors, and primary bone sarcoma; these types of cancers usually need further gene-based diagnosis. Bone marrow biopsy is widely performed in patients with hematologic malignancies and pediatric sarcomas or blastomas. Therefore, preserving genetic materials is critical in handling bone marrow tissues, and cost and turn-around time may be less important in such cases. Preserving intact nucleic acid, as well as intact proteins, is critical to providing not only accurate pathologic diagnosis but also diverse therapeutic options to the patients. Considering this, in this study the EDTA protocol was the most appropriate method for handling bone marrow specimens. RDO may also be useful in that it requires less decalcification time and it enables more ancillary tests than HCl, but its usefulness is limited by less potential for genetic studies in processed samples than EDTA.
- In this era of expanding genetic molecular study, better tissue handling methods are needed. The present study suggests an appropriate approach in handling bone marrow tissues, and this approach should be expanded to other types of tissue specimens.
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
Fig. 1.The quality, quantity, and feasibility of real time PCR study is compared between EDTA, RDO, and HCl protocols. The first row demonstrates EDTA versus HCl, and the second row RDO versus HCl (A, D, DNA yield; B, PCR result of EDTA; E, PCR result of RDO; C, F, PCR results of HCl). D, PCR result of RDO. PCR, polymerase chain reaction; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD; HCl, hydrochloric acid; PNA, peptide nucleic acid.
Fig. 2.In EDTA versus HCl comparison of a pair of bone marrow sampled from the same patient (A–D, EDTA versus HCl group; A, B, EDTA protocol; C, D, HCl protocol), and in RDO versus HCl comparison of a pair of bone marrow sampled from the same patient (E–H, RDO versus HCl group; E, F, RDO protocol; G, H, HCl protocol), all the three methods of EDTA, RDO, and HCl protocols demonstrate intact and well-preserved histological features of bone marrow. EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; HCl, hydrochloric acid; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Fig. 3.In HER2 dual color silver in situ hybridization study, almost every nucleus in cases of EDTA protocol demonstrates two intact signals of HER2 and CEP17, while cases of RDO or HCl protocol barely demonstrate HER2 or CEP17 signals from the nucleus due to the severe breakdown of DNA (A, B, comparison of EDTA versus HCl in a pair of bone marrow from the same patients; C, D, comparison of RDO versus HCl in a pair of bone marrow from the same patients). EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD; HCl, hydrochloric acid.
Fig. 4.The quality of RNA is compared in kappa light chain (A–D) and lambda light chain (E–H) RNA in situ hybridization using a pair of bone marrow specimens from the same patient. In a case of kappa light chain-restricted plasma cell myeloma, EDTA protocol (A) reveals intact quality while HCl (B) protocol shows poor quality in kappa light chain RNA in situ hybridization. In a case of lambda light chain-restricted plasma cell myeloma, EDTA protocol (E) reveals intact quality while HCl (F) protocol shows poor quality. In a case of polyclonal plasma cell infiltration within the bone marrow, the EDTA and RDO protocol (C and G, respectively) reveal intact quality while HCl (D, H) protocol show poor quality in kappa and lambda light chain RNA in situ hybridization, respectively. EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; HCl, hydrochloric acid; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Fig. 5.In immunohistochemistry of Ki67 (A–D), EDTA (A) shows intact quality while HCl (B) shows poor quality in a pair of bone marrow sample from the same patient. A similar result is noted in comparison of RDO (C) versus HCl (D). Nuclear staining of cyclin D1 is intact in EDTA (E), while it is not in HCl (F) of a paired bone marrow from the same patient. Nuclear staining of TdT is intact in RDO (G), while it is poor in HCl (H) of a paired bone marrow from the same patient. Cytoplasmic membrane staining of CD138 (I–L) reveals intact quality in all three protocols: EDTA (I), RDO (K), and HCl (J, L). EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; HCl, hydrochloric acid; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Table 1.The decalcification protocols of three methods
| Solution | Processing time (hr) | Processing temperature |
|---|---|---|
| HCl (100%) | 3 | Room temperature |
| EDTA (12.5%) | 3 or 24a | Room temperature |
| RDO (100%) | 0.5–1 | Room temperature |
Table 2.Primary antibodies used
| Product name | Dilution | Clonality | Clone | Company |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyclin D1 (SP4) | 1:50 | Monoclonal | SP4 | LabVisiona |
| Ki67 | 1:1,000 | Monoclonal | MIB-1 | DAKOb |
| Bcl2 Bond-III | 1:50 | Monoclonal | bcl2/100/D5 | Novocastrac |
| Bcl6 | Prediluent | Monoclonal | LN22 | Novocastra |
| TdT | 1:100 | Polyclonal | - | Cell Marqued |
| CD138 | Prediluent | Monoclonal | ML15 | DAKO |
| CD20 | 1:400 | Monoclonal | L26 | Novocastra |
| CD79a (B cell) | 1:100 | Monoclonal | JCB117 | DAKO |
| CD3 | 1:200 | Monoclonal | SP7 | LabVision |
| CD5 | 1:100 | Monoclonal | 4C7 | Novocastra |
| CD23 | 1:100 | Monoclonal | SP23 | LabVision |
| CD10 | 1:75 | Monoclonal | 56C6 | Novocastra |
| CD30 | 1:50 | Monoclonal | Ber-H2 | DAKO |
| Myeloperoxidase | 1:2,000 | Polyclonal | - | DAKO |
Table 3.Quantity and quality of DNA according to decalcification protocols
Table 4.Comparison of the immunohistochemical results
| Item |
EDTA vs HCl |
RDO vs HCl |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDTA | HCl | RDO | HCl | |
| HER2/CEP17 SISH | 5/5 (100)a | 0/5 (0) | 0/5 (0) | 0/5 (0) |
| Kappa ISH | 7/7 (100) | 4/7 (57.1) | 2/3 (66.7) | 2/3 (66.7) |
| Lambda ISH | 5/5 (100) | 1/5 (20) | 2/2 (100) | 0/2 (0) |
| CyclinD1 | 9/9 (100) | 2/9 (22.2) | 3/3 (100) | 1/3 (33.3) |
| Ki67 | 9/9 (100) | 5/9 (55.6) | 10/10 (100) | 6/10 (45.5) |
| Bcl2 | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 4/4 (100) | 4/4 (100) |
| Bcl6 | No data | No data | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) |
| TdT | No data | No data | 1/1 (100) | 0/1 (0) |
| CD138 | 7/7 (100) | 7/7 (100) | 3/3 (100) | 3/3 (100) |
| CD20 | 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) |
| CD79a (B cell) | No data | No data | 2/2 (100) | 2/2 (100) |
| CD3 | 5/5 (100) | 5/5 (100) | 4/4 (100) | 4/4 (100) |
| CD5 | No data | No data | 3/3 (100) | 3/3 (100) |
| CD23 | No data | No data | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) |
| CD10 | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) |
| CD30 | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | No data | No data |
| Myeloperoxidase | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 2/2 (100) | 2/2 (100) |
HCl, hydrochloric acid; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD; SISH, silver in situ hybridization; ISH, in situ hybridization.
aCase number showing intact stain result among overall case number stained with each item (%). Positive expression in the indicated tumor cells or internal controls was considered as intact stain. For example, positive expression of cyclin D1 in mantle cell lymphoma cells or endothelial cells was interpreted as intact stain result.
- 1. Singh VM, Salunga RC, Huang VJ, et al. Analysis of the effect of various decalcification agents on the quantity and quality of nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) recovered from bone biopsies. Ann Diagn Pathol 2013; 17: 322-6. ArticlePubMed
- 2. Reineke T, Jenni B, Abdou MT, et al. Ultrasonic decalcification offers new perspectives for rapid FISH, DNA, and RT-PCR analysis in bone marrow trephines. Am J Surg Pathol 2006; 30: 892-6. ArticlePubMed
- 3. Brown RS, Edwards J, Bartlett JW, Jones C, Dogan A. Routine acid decalcification of bone marrow samples can preserve DNA for FISH and CGH studies in metastatic prostate cancer. J Histochem Cytochem 2002; 50: 113-5. ArticlePubMed
- 4. Alers JC, Krijtenburg PJ, Vissers KJ, van Dekken H. Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier. J Histochem Cytochem 1999; 47: 703-10. ArticlePubMed
- 5. Adegboyega PA, Gokhale S. Effect of decalcification on the immunohistochemical expression of ABH blood group isoantigens. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2003; 11: 194-7. ArticlePubMed
- 6. Castania VA, Silveira JW, Issy AC, et al. Advantages of a combined method of decalcification compared to EDTA. Microsc Res Tech 2015; 78: 111-8. ArticlePubMed
- 7. Wickham CL, Sarsfield P, Joyner MV, Jones DB, Ellard S, Wilkins B. Formic acid decalcification of bone marrow trephines degrades DNA: alternative use of EDTA allows the amplification and sequencing of relatively long PCR products. Mol Pathol 2000; 53: 336.ArticlePubMedPMC
REFERENCES
Figure & Data
References
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
- Optimization of Formic Acid-Formalin-Based Decalcification Protocol for Rat Calvarial Bone Histology
S. Amitha Banu, Khan Sharun, Merlin Mamachan, Athira Subash, Vadapalli Deekshita, Kirtika Sharma, Karikalan Mathesh, Obli Rajendran Vinodh kumar, Swapan Kumar Maiti, Abhijit M. Pawde, Laith Abualigah, Kuldeep Dhama, Amarpal
Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences.2024; 12(2): 218. CrossRef - Effects of fixation and demineralization on histomorphology and DNA amplification of canine bone marrow
Gabriella M. L. Diamantino, Janet Beeler-Marfisi, Robert A. Foster, William Sears, Alice Defarges, William Vernau, Dorothee Bienzle
Veterinary Pathology.2024; 61(6): 943. CrossRef - In situ metabolomic analysis of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) using MALDI MSI
Chen Li, Jikun Liu, Yiqi Sheng, Yinghao Wang, Lan Jia, Yinguang Zhang, Jiantao Li, Shuangshuang Di, Honggang Nie, Yehua Han
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.2024; 416(23): 5155. CrossRef - A set of pretreatment reagents including improved formula fixation and decalcification facilitating immunohistochemistry and DNA analyses of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded bone marrow trephine biopsy
Ting Sun, Liming Xu, Hongtian Yao, Jing Zhao, Zhen Chen, Zexin Chen, Bo Wang, Wei Ding
Acta Histochemica.2024; 126(8): 152188. CrossRef - Germline and somatic testing for homologous repair deficiency in patients with prostate cancer (part 1 of 2)
Andrew J. Armstrong, Amy Taylor, Michael C. Haffner, Wassim Abida, Alan H. Bryce, Lawrence I. Karsh, Scott T. Tagawa, Przemyslaw Twardowski, Anthony V. Serritella, Joshua M. Lang
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - To Freeze or Not to Freeze? Recommendations for Intraoperative Examination and Gross Prosection of Thyroid Glands
Fouad R. Zakka, Nicole A. Cipriani
Surgical Pathology Clinics.2023; 16(1): 15. CrossRef - Effect of Surface Decalcification With Hydrochloric Acid on the Determination of Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, Ki67, and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Expressions in Invasive Breast Carcinoma Based on Immunohistochemistry and Fluore
Wu Ping, Rao Xin, Zhang Li, Chen Yupeng, Song Fangling, Ren Caihong, Hu Shun, Zhang Sheng
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology.2023; 31(4): 232. CrossRef - Diagnostic value of MDM2 RNA in situ hybridization for low-grade osteosarcoma: Consistency comparison of RNA in situ hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry
Chen Chen, Xin He, Min Chen, Tianhai Du, Weiji Qin, Wenyi Jing, Hongying Zhang
Virchows Archiv.2023; 482(6): 999. CrossRef - Bone marrow fibrosis is associated with non‐response to CD19 CAR T‐cell therapy in B‐acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Joshua Anil, Ahab Alnemri, Andrew Lytle, Brian Lockhart, Ashley E. Anil, Michael Baumgartner, Kirubel Gebre, Jared McFerran, Stephan A. Grupp, Susan R. Rheingold, Vinodh Pillai
American Journal of Hematology.2023; 98(12): 1888. CrossRef - Epithelioid haemangioendothelioma of the mandible – A case report and review of the literature
Ali Rizvi, Tim K. Blackburn, Guy N. J. Betts
Oral Surgery.2022; 15(3): 387. CrossRef - Evaluation of EDTA and nitric acid solutions for decalcification of joints in AG/WT, BALB/c, C57, DBA1/J mice, and in Wistar rats
Eduarda Correa Freitas, Suelen Pizzolatto Dalmolin, Mateus Müller da Silva, Francine Hehn de Oliveira, Emily Ferreira Salles Pilar
Biotechnic & Histochemistry.2022; 97(5): 372. CrossRef - Coupling Lipid Labeling and Click Chemistry Enables Isolation of Extracellular Vesicles for Noninvasive Detection of Oncogenic Gene Alterations
Na Sun, Benjamin V. Tran, Zishan Peng, Jing Wang, Ceng Zhang, Peng Yang, Tiffany X. Zhang, Josephine Widjaja, Ryan Y. Zhang, Wenxi Xia, Alexandra Keir, Jia‐Wei She, Hsiao‐hua Yu, Jing‐Jong Shyue, Hongguang Zhu, Vatche G. Agopian, Renjun Pei, James S. Toml
Advanced Science.2022;[Epub] CrossRef - The Expressions of CD30 and CD123 of Mastocytosis in Taiwan
Ching-Fen Yang, Chih-Yi Hsu
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology.2022; 30(4): 278. CrossRef - Unusual Patterns of HER2 Expression in Breast Cancer: Insights and Perspectives
Dora Grassini, Eliano Cascardi, Ivana Sarotto, Laura Annaratone, Anna Sapino, Enrico Berrino, Caterina Marchiò
Pathobiology.2022; 89(5): 278. CrossRef - Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing — Part 1: Tissue collection and management
Frédérique Penault-Llorca, Keith M. Kerr, Pilar Garrido, Erik Thunnissen, Elisabeth Dequeker, Nicola Normanno, Simon J. Patton, Jenni Fairley, Joshua Kapp, Daniëlle de Ridder, Aleš Ryška, Holger Moch
Virchows Archiv.2022; 481(3): 335. CrossRef - Comparison of bone demineralisation procedures for DNA recovery from burned remains
Meghan Mckinnon, Denice Higgins
Forensic Science International: Genetics.2021; 51: 102448. CrossRef - A review of the current understanding of burned bone as a source of DNA for human identification
Meghan Mckinnon, Maciej Henneberg, Denice Higgins
Science & Justice.2021; 61(4): 332. CrossRef - Time is bone — Quantitative comparison of decalcification solvents in human femur samples using dual-X-ray-absorptiometry and computed tomography
Joshua Gawlitza, Jakob Steinhäuser, Arno Bücker, Gabriela Krasteva-Christ, Thomas Tschernig
Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger.2021; 235: 151696. CrossRef - Molecular biomarker testing for non–small cell lung cancer: consensus statement of the Korean Cardiopulmonary Pathology Study Group
Sunhee Chang, Hyo Sup Shim, Tae Jung Kim, Yoon-La Choi, Wan Seop Kim, Dong Hoon Shin, Lucia Kim, Heae Surng Park, Geon Kook Lee, Chang Hun Lee
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine.2021; 55(3): 181. CrossRef - Effect of EDTA decalcification on estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry and HER2/neu fluorescence in situ hybridization in breast carcinoma
Erik Washburn, Xiaoyu Tang, Carla Caruso, Michelle Walls, Bing Han
Human Pathology.2021; 117: 108. CrossRef - Performances of single tube nested polymerase chain reaction and GeneXpert ultra on Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues in the diagnosis of tuberculous spondylodiscitis
Emna Romdhane, Soumaya Rammeh, Chelli Mouna Bouaziz, Hend Riahi, Meriam Rekaya Ben, Meriam Ksentini, Yosra Chebbi, Wafa Achour, Asma Ferjani, Ben Boubaker Ilhem Boutiba, Leila Slim-Saidi, Mohamed Fethi Ladeb
Clinical Rheumatology.2021; 40(10): 4317. CrossRef - Molecular Characterization of Prostate Cancers in the Precision Medicine Era
Emilio Francesco Giunta, Laura Annaratone, Enrico Bollito, Francesco Porpiglia, Matteo Cereda, Giuseppe Luigi Banna, Alessandra Mosca, Caterina Marchiò, Pasquale Rescigno
Cancers.2021; 13(19): 4771. CrossRef - Increased NF-κB Activity in Osteoprogenitor-Lineage Cells Impairs the Balance of Bone Versus Fat in the Marrow of Skeletally Mature Mice
Tzuhua Lin, Jukka Pajarinen, Yusuke Kohno, Akira Nabeshima, Laura Lu, Karthik Nathan, Zhenyu Yao, Joy Y. Wu, Stuart Goodman
Regenerative Engineering and Translational Medicine.2020; 6(1): 69. CrossRef - Percutaneous CT-guided biopsy of lytic bone lesions in patients clinically suspected of lung cancer: Diagnostic performances for pathological diagnosis and molecular testing
Anne-Claire Toffart, Stéphane Asfari, Anne Mc Leer, Emilie Reymond, Adrien Jankowski, Denis Moro-Sibilot, Olivier Stephanov, Julien Ghelfi, Sylvie Lantuejoul, Gilbert R. Ferretti
Lung Cancer.2020; 140: 93. CrossRef - Effect of decalcification protocols on immunohistochemistry and molecular analyses of bone samples
Elodie Miquelestorena-Standley, Marie-Lise Jourdan, Christine Collin, Corinne Bouvier, Frédérique Larousserie, Sébastien Aubert, Anne Gomez-Brouchet, Jean-Marc Guinebretière, Matthias Tallegas, Bénédicte Brulin, Louis-Romée Le Nail, Anne Tallet, François
Modern Pathology.2020; 33(8): 1505. CrossRef - Identifying Opportunities and Challenges for Patients With Sarcoma as a Result of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Sarcoma Specimens
Margaret A. Hay, Eric A. Severson, Vincent A. Miller, David A. Liebner, Jo-Anne Vergilio, Sherri Z. Millis, James L. Chen
JCO Precision Oncology.2020; (4): 176. CrossRef - Comparison of Methods for the Histological Evaluation of Odontocete Spiral Ganglion Cells
Tania Ramírez, Simona Sacchini, Yania Paz, Rubén S. Rosales, Nakita Câmara, Marisa Andrada, Manuel Arbelo, Antonio Fernández
Animals.2020; 10(4): 683. CrossRef - Molecular Pathology of Primary Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
David Ilan Suster, Mari Mino-Kenudson
Archives of Medical Research.2020; 51(8): 784. CrossRef - Comparison of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and rapid decalcificier solution for studying human temporal bones by immunofluorescence
Sumana Ghosh, Mark B. Lewis, Bradley J. Walters
Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology.2020; 5(5): 919. CrossRef - A novel cryo-embedding method for in-depth analysis of craniofacial mini pig bone specimens
Pavla Ticha, Igor Pilawski, Xue Yuan, Jie Pan, Ustun S. Tulu, Benjamin R. Coyac, Waldemar Hoffmann, Jill A. Helms
Scientific Reports.2020;[Epub] CrossRef - Accelerating precision medicine in metastatic prostate cancer
Joaquin Mateo, Rana McKay, Wassim Abida, Rahul Aggarwal, Joshi Alumkal, Ajjai Alva, Felix Feng, Xin Gao, Julie Graff, Maha Hussain, Fatima Karzai, Bruce Montgomery, William Oh, Vaibhav Patel, Dana Rathkopf, Matthew Rettig, Nikolaus Schultz, Matthew Smith,
Nature Cancer.2020; 1(11): 1041. CrossRef - Tissue Morphology and Antigenicity in Mouse and Rat Tibia: Comparing 12 Different Decalcification Conditions
Kristofor Bogoevski, Anna Woloszyk, Keith Blackwood, Maria A. Woodruff, Vaida Glatt
Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry.2019; 67(8): 545. CrossRef - Cellular and collagen reference values of gingival and periodontal ligament tissues in rats: a pilot study
Antoine Alves, Nina Attik, Carine Wirth, Yves Bayon, Alexis Piat, Brigitte Grosgogeat, Kerstin Gritsch
Histochemistry and Cell Biology.2019; 152(2): 145. CrossRef - Implementing Precision Medicine Programs and Clinical Trials in the Community-Based Oncology Practice: Barriers and Best Practices
Jennifer L. Ersek, Lora J. Black, Michael A. Thompson, Edward S. Kim
American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book.2018; (38): 188. CrossRef - Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL
Zandra C Deans, Jose Luis Costa, Ian Cree, Els Dequeker, Anders Edsjö, Shirley Henderson, Michael Hummel, Marjolijn JL Ligtenberg, Marco Loddo, Jose Carlos Machado, Antonio Marchetti, Katherine Marquis, Joanne Mason, Nicola Normanno, Etienne Rouleau, Ed S
Virchows Archiv.2017; 470(1): 5. CrossRef - Protocolo para el estudio de muestras y estandarización del informe patológico de tumores óseos
Isidro Machado, José Juan Pozo, David Marcilla, Julia Cruz, Juan C. Tardío, Aurora Astudillo, Sílvia Bagué
Revista Española de Patología.2017; 50(1): 34. CrossRef - Extremely Well-Differentiated Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Resembling Adenomatous Hyperplasia Can Metastasize to the Skull: A Case Report
Ju Yeon Pyo, Jisup Kim, Sung-eun Choi, Eunah Shin, Seok-Woo Yang, Cheong Soo Park, Seok-Mo Kim, SoonWon Hong
Yonsei Medical Journal.2017; 58(1): 255. CrossRef - Treatment of steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head using porous Se@SiO2 nanocomposites to suppress reactive oxygen species
Guoying Deng, Kerun Niu, Feng Zhou, Buxiao Li, Yingjie Kang, Xijian Liu, Junqing Hu, Bo Li, Qiugen Wang, Chengqing Yi, Qian Wang
Scientific Reports.2017;[Epub] CrossRef - Precision Medicine Starts With Preanalytics: Real-Time Assessment of Tissue Fixation Quality by Ultrasound Time-of-Flight Analysis
Melissa L. Lerch, Daniel R. Bauer, David Chafin, Abbey Theiss, Michael Otter, Geoffrey S. Baird
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology.2017; 25(3): 160. CrossRef - Good Laboratory Standards for Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing Cancer Panel Tests
Jihun Kim, Woong-Yang Park, Nayoung K. D. Kim, Se Jin Jang, Sung-Min Chun, Chang-Ohk Sung, Jene Choi, Young-Hyeh Ko, Yoon-La Choi, Hyo Sup Shim, Jae-Kyung Won
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine.2017; 51(3): 191. CrossRef - An international survey about nail histology processing techniques
Christina Wlodek, Pauline Lecerf, Josette Andre, Beth S. Ruben, David de Berker
Journal of Cutaneous Pathology.2017; 44(9): 749. CrossRef - pSTAT5 and ERK exhibit different expression in myeloproliferative neoplasms
Ewa Wiśniewska-Chudy, Łukasz Szylberg, Grzegorz Dworacki, Ewa Mizera-Nyczak, Andrzej Marszałek
Oncology Reports.2017; 37(4): 2295. CrossRef - How we do: optimizing bone marrow biopsy logistics for sign-out within 2 days
I. de Laak–de Vries, A. G. Siebers, L. Burgers, C. Diepenbroek, M. Link, P. Groenen, J. H. J. M. van Krieken, K. M. Hebeda
Journal of Hematopathology.2016; 9(2): 67. CrossRef - Do More With Less: Tips and Techniques for Maximizing Small Biopsy and Cytology Specimens for Molecular and Ancillary Testing: The University of Colorado Experience
Dara L. Aisner, Mathew D. Rumery, Daniel T. Merrick, Kimi L. Kondo, Hala Nijmeh, Derek J. Linderman, Robert C. Doebele, Natalie Thomas, Patrick C. Chesnut, Marileila Varella-Garcia, Wilbur A. Franklin, D. Ross Camidge
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.2016; 140(11): 1206. CrossRef - Analysis of the Effects of Bone Marrow Biopsy Decalcification Methods on Histopathological Examination
Ji Young Park, Kyung Hee Han
The Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science.2016; 48(4): 371. CrossRef - Distinguishing between Microbial Habitats Unravels Ecological Complexity in Coral Microbiomes
Amy Apprill, Laura G. Weber, Alyson E. Santoro, Nicole S. Webster
mSystems.2016;[Epub] CrossRef - Optimal Fixation and Decalcification Methods for Bone Marrow Biopsy
Myung-Sub Choi, Hyunsup Lee, Hyuk-Chul Kwon, Moon-Hwan Bae, Young-Hye Ko, Hee-Jin Kim, Beom-Se Lee, Bon-Kyung Koo
Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science.2015; 47(4): 243. CrossRef
PubReader
ePub Link-
Cite this Article
- Cite this Article
-
- Close
- Download Citation
- Close
XML Download- Figure
-
Proposal of an Appropriate Decalcification Method of Bone Marrow Biopsy Specimens in the Era of Expanding Genetic Molecular Study
Fig. 1. The quality, quantity, and feasibility of real time PCR study is compared between EDTA, RDO, and HCl protocols. The first row demonstrates EDTA versus HCl, and the second row RDO versus HCl (A, D, DNA yield; B, PCR result of EDTA; E, PCR result of RDO; C, F, PCR results of HCl). D, PCR result of RDO. PCR, polymerase chain reaction; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD; HCl, hydrochloric acid; PNA, peptide nucleic acid.
Fig. 2. In EDTA versus HCl comparison of a pair of bone marrow sampled from the same patient (A–D, EDTA versus HCl group; A, B, EDTA protocol; C, D, HCl protocol), and in RDO versus HCl comparison of a pair of bone marrow sampled from the same patient (E–H, RDO versus HCl group; E, F, RDO protocol; G, H, HCl protocol), all the three methods of EDTA, RDO, and HCl protocols demonstrate intact and well-preserved histological features of bone marrow. EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; HCl, hydrochloric acid; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Fig. 3. In HER2 dual color silver in situ hybridization study, almost every nucleus in cases of EDTA protocol demonstrates two intact signals of HER2 and CEP17, while cases of RDO or HCl protocol barely demonstrate HER2 or CEP17 signals from the nucleus due to the severe breakdown of DNA (A, B, comparison of EDTA versus HCl in a pair of bone marrow from the same patients; C, D, comparison of RDO versus HCl in a pair of bone marrow from the same patients). EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD; HCl, hydrochloric acid.
Fig. 4. The quality of RNA is compared in kappa light chain (A–D) and lambda light chain (E–H) RNA in situ hybridization using a pair of bone marrow specimens from the same patient. In a case of kappa light chain-restricted plasma cell myeloma, EDTA protocol (A) reveals intact quality while HCl (B) protocol shows poor quality in kappa light chain RNA in situ hybridization. In a case of lambda light chain-restricted plasma cell myeloma, EDTA protocol (E) reveals intact quality while HCl (F) protocol shows poor quality. In a case of polyclonal plasma cell infiltration within the bone marrow, the EDTA and RDO protocol (C and G, respectively) reveal intact quality while HCl (D, H) protocol show poor quality in kappa and lambda light chain RNA in situ hybridization, respectively. EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; HCl, hydrochloric acid; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Fig. 5. In immunohistochemistry of Ki67 (A–D), EDTA (A) shows intact quality while HCl (B) shows poor quality in a pair of bone marrow sample from the same patient. A similar result is noted in comparison of RDO (C) versus HCl (D). Nuclear staining of cyclin D1 is intact in EDTA (E), while it is not in HCl (F) of a paired bone marrow from the same patient. Nuclear staining of TdT is intact in RDO (G), while it is poor in HCl (H) of a paired bone marrow from the same patient. Cytoplasmic membrane staining of CD138 (I–L) reveals intact quality in all three protocols: EDTA (I), RDO (K), and HCl (J, L). EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; HCl, hydrochloric acid; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Proposal of an Appropriate Decalcification Method of Bone Marrow Biopsy Specimens in the Era of Expanding Genetic Molecular Study
| Solution | Processing time (hr) | Processing temperature |
|---|---|---|
| HCl (100%) | 3 | Room temperature |
| EDTA (12.5%) | 3 or 24 |
Room temperature |
| RDO (100%) | 0.5–1 | Room temperature |
| Product name | Dilution | Clonality | Clone | Company |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyclin D1 (SP4) | 1:50 | Monoclonal | SP4 | LabVision |
| Ki67 | 1:1,000 | Monoclonal | MIB-1 | DAKO |
| Bcl2 Bond-III | 1:50 | Monoclonal | bcl2/100/D5 | Novocastra |
| Bcl6 | Prediluent | Monoclonal | LN22 | Novocastra |
| TdT | 1:100 | Polyclonal | - | Cell Marque |
| CD138 | Prediluent | Monoclonal | ML15 | DAKO |
| CD20 | 1:400 | Monoclonal | L26 | Novocastra |
| CD79a (B cell) | 1:100 | Monoclonal | JCB117 | DAKO |
| CD3 | 1:200 | Monoclonal | SP7 | LabVision |
| CD5 | 1:100 | Monoclonal | 4C7 | Novocastra |
| CD23 | 1:100 | Monoclonal | SP23 | LabVision |
| CD10 | 1:75 | Monoclonal | 56C6 | Novocastra |
| CD30 | 1:50 | Monoclonal | Ber-H2 | DAKO |
| Myeloperoxidase | 1:2,000 | Polyclonal | - | DAKO |
| DNA yield (median, range) | p-value | Ct value (median, range) | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDTA vs HCl | EDTA | 25 (11.0–37.0) | .168 | 25.0 (24.6–27.2) | <.001 |
| HCl | 12 (11.0–28.0) | 32.7 (28.9–33.3) | |||
| RDO vs HCl | RDO | 14.7 (10.9–15.0) | .753 | 33.6 (33.0–34.1) | .754 |
| HCl | 13.4 (10.0–15.3) | 33.5 (33.2–35.2) |
| Item | EDTA vs HCl |
RDO vs HCl |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDTA | HCl | RDO | HCl | |
| HER2/CEP17 SISH | 5/5 (100) |
0/5 (0) | 0/5 (0) | 0/5 (0) |
| Kappa ISH | 7/7 (100) | 4/7 (57.1) | 2/3 (66.7) | 2/3 (66.7) |
| Lambda ISH | 5/5 (100) | 1/5 (20) | 2/2 (100) | 0/2 (0) |
| CyclinD1 | 9/9 (100) | 2/9 (22.2) | 3/3 (100) | 1/3 (33.3) |
| Ki67 | 9/9 (100) | 5/9 (55.6) | 10/10 (100) | 6/10 (45.5) |
| Bcl2 | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 4/4 (100) | 4/4 (100) |
| Bcl6 | No data | No data | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) |
| TdT | No data | No data | 1/1 (100) | 0/1 (0) |
| CD138 | 7/7 (100) | 7/7 (100) | 3/3 (100) | 3/3 (100) |
| CD20 | 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) |
| CD79a (B cell) | No data | No data | 2/2 (100) | 2/2 (100) |
| CD3 | 5/5 (100) | 5/5 (100) | 4/4 (100) | 4/4 (100) |
| CD5 | No data | No data | 3/3 (100) | 3/3 (100) |
| CD23 | No data | No data | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) |
| CD10 | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) |
| CD30 | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | No data | No data |
| Myeloperoxidase | 1/1 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 2/2 (100) | 2/2 (100) |
Table 1. The decalcification protocols of three methods
HCl, hydrochloric acid; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD. The processing time of EDTA method was mostly 3 hours. It was 24 hours for few cases that contained more cortical bone due to the oblique direction when inserting biopsy-needle.
Table 2. Primary antibodies used
Lab vision, Waltham, MA; DAKO, Carpinteria, CA; Novocastra, Buffalo Grave, IL; Cell Marque, Rocklin, CA.
Table 3. Quantity and quality of DNA according to decalcification protocols
Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the median of each variables. HCl, hydrochloric acid; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD.
Table 4. Comparison of the immunohistochemical results
HCl, hydrochloric acid; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate; RDO, RDO GOLD; SISH, silver Case number showing intact stain result among overall case number stained with each item (%). Positive expression in the indicated tumor cells or internal controls was considered as intact stain. For example, positive expression of cyclin D1 in mantle cell lymphoma cells or endothelial cells was interpreted as intact stain result.
