4.1 Article

Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV)-Encoded RNA: Automated In-Situ Hybridization (ISH) Compared with Manual ISH and Immunohistochemistry for Detection of EBV in Pediatric Lymphoproliferative Disorders

期刊

PEDIATRIC AND DEVELOPMENTAL PATHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 195-199

出版社

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.2350/07-07-0316.1

关键词

EBER; Epstein-Barr virus; immunohistochemistry; in-situ hybridization; post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) may be achieved by various methods, including EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in-situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for latent membrane protein (LMP-1). We compared novel automated ISH and IHC techniques in pediatric lympho-proliferative disorders with results obtained by manual ISH. Thirty-seven pediatric cases previously studied by manual EBER ISH (including 18 EBER-positive, 15 EBER-negative, and 4 EBER-equivocal cases) were used for the study. Automated EBER ISH and automated LMP-1 IHC were performed using the BondMax autostainer and prediluted EBER probe and EBV cell surface I to 4 at 1:50 dilution, respectively. Results of each of the automated techniques for EBV detection were compared with results by manual EBER ISH. Compared with manual EBER ISH as the gold standard, automated ISH had a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 69%, respectively, accuracy of 83%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 79%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90%. Automated IHC had a sensitivity of 44%, specificity of 93%, accuracy of 67%, PPV of 88%, and NPV of 59%. Automated ISH and IHC correlated significantly (P < 0.045). Automated ISH is useful for diagnosis of EBV-related pediatric neoplasms, being easy to perform and interpret and requiring only the technologist's time to set up and having a high sensitivity and NPV The automated IHC protocol is of too low sensitivity for routine use, although results show high specificity and PPV

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据