The immunohistochemistry technique is used in the search for cell or tissue antigens that range from amino acids and proteins to infectious agents and specific cellular populations. The technique comprises two phases: (1) slides preparation and stages involved for the reaction; (2) interpretation and quantification of the obtained expression. Immunohistochemistry is an important tool for scientific research and also a complementary technique for the elucidation of differential diagnoses which are not determinable by conventional analysis with hematoxylin and eosin. In the last couple of decades there has been an exponential increase in publications on immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry techniques. This review covers the immunohistochemistry technique; its history, applications, importance, limitations, difficulties, problems and some aspects related to results interpretation and quantification. Future developments on the immunohistochemistry technique and its expression quantification should not be disseminated in two languages–-that of the pathologist and another of clinician or surgeon. The scientific, diagnostic and prognostic applications of this methodology must be explored in a bid to benefit of patient. In order to achieve this goal a collaboration and pooling of knowledge from both of these valuable medical areas is vital

To distinguish between malignant and benign lesions of the thyroid gland histological demonstration is often required since the fine-needle aspiration biopsy method applied pre-operatively has some limitations. In an attempt to improve diagnostic accuracy, markers using immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry techniques have been studied, mainly cytokeratin-19 (CK-19), galectin-3 (Gal-3) and Hector Battifora mesothelial-1 (HBME-1). However, current results remain controversial. The aim of the present article was to establish the diagnostic accuracy of CK-19, Gal-3 and HBME-1 markers, as well as their associations, in the differentiation of malignant and benign thyroid lesions.

A therapeutic decision in the treatment of Tis/T1a glottic carcinoma with radiotherapy (RT) or transoral laser surgery (TOS) is still an open issue. Oncologic outcome and voice quality may support the choice for the latter To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncologic and functional outcomes of TOS and RT as treatment options for Tis/T1a glottic cancer. Literature research on online databases was carried out. Potentially eligible articles were reviewed. Relevant articles were selected and evaluated. There was statistical significance favoring patients initially treated with TOS when it comes to overall survival, disease-specific survival and larynx preservation. No difference in local control was found. TMF, Jitter and Shimmmer measurements presented statistically significant results in favor of RT. Self-assessment of voice quality (VHI) and f0 showed no statistically significant differences. Maximum Phonation Time (MPT) had a better response to RT. There is a trend in favor of RT. Tis/T1a glottic cancer patients submitted to TOS had significant overall and disease specific survival and had fewer risks of having a total laryngectomy, when compared to the radiotherapy group. The self-assessment of voice quality and f0 did not show any difference; however, Jitter, Shimmer and MPT measurements favored radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare immunostaining quantification obtained by a digital computer-assisted method with the well-established semiquantitative analysis. METHODS: Cytoplasmic staining of galectin-3 was obtained by standard immunohistochemical reactions in 25 cases of well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma. The expression index that associates the conventional area fraction of labeled cells with the immunostaining intensity score based on visual qualitative observation was used as the semiquantitative analysis. A digital computer-assisted method is described based on the use of an image processing program (ImageLab®). Three parameters were obtained: (1) percentage of labeled cells; (2) digital immunostaining intensity, and (3) digital expression index. The proposed method allows numerical analysis of the immunostaining intensity. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between the immunostaining intensity obtained by the two methods (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.71, P = 0.0001). The same was observed between expression indexes (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.66, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Results obtained with our proposed digital computer-assisted method for immunoexpression analysis were concordant with the semiquantitative analysis. In addition, digital values can also resolve disagreement among different observers about the quality of staining intensity because the digital method does not classify the results into groups, but rather provides a numerical value for each individual case; thus, it increases the diagnostic and, more importantly, the prognostic sensitivity of the immunohistochemical analysis.