In brief
- An IASLC Cytology Working Group study compared immunocytochemistry (ICC) for TTF-1, p40, ALK and ROS1 on cytology slides stained in seven laboratories representing commonly used fixation protocols.
- The seven laboratories were selected after an exploratory global survey of 63 institutions, and 105 stained slides from 17 study runs were scored on digitised images.
- Delaunay-fixed, Papanicolaou-stained and methanol-fixed polyethylene glycol-coated preparations performed consistently better than the other fixation protocols evaluated.
- Staining was suboptimal in 81.8% of PreservCyt-fixed preparations and in 58.8% of air-dried preparations.
- The authors call for harmonised pre-analytical practice, robust local validation and external quality assessment for ICC on material without a cell block.
Study at a glance
- Laboratories: Seven, selected after an exploratory global survey of 63 institutions
- Material: Direct smears, cytospins and cells in PreservCyt, prepared by two central laboratories from specimens with confirmed marker expression
- Markers: TTF-1, p40, ALK and ROS1, each stained to the laboratory’s local protocol
- Scoring: Digitised slides, evaluated independently against standardised four-tier criteria
- Slides assessed: 105, from 17 study runs
- Suboptimal staining: 81.8% with PreservCyt fixation; 58.8% with air-dried preparations
- Not reported: In the abstract, results for each marker separately, the number of slides per protocol and agreement between the evaluators
Seven laboratories chosen after a survey of 63 institutions
Immunohistochemistry on a biopsy or a cell block is the usual basis for TTF-1 and p40 subtyping and for ALK and ROS1 testing in NSCLC. When the only material available is cytological and there is neither a concurrent biopsy nor a cell block, the stain may have to be done on slides prepared with whatever fixation the laboratory uses.
The working group surveyed 63 institutions and then selected seven laboratories whose fixation protocols were in common use. Two central laboratories prepared direct smears and cytospins, and supplied cells in PreservCyt, from specimens already known to express the markers. Each participating laboratory then stained the material according to its own local protocol.
Delaunay-fixed Pap-stained and PEG-coated methanol preparations stained most reliably
All slides were digitised and evaluated independently against a standardised four-tier scale, and 105 slides from 17 study runs went into the comparison. The preparations that gave consistently superior ICC performance were Delaunay-fixed, Papanicolaou-stained, and methanol-fixed polyethylene glycol (PEG)-coated preparations.
Because every specimen had confirmed expression of the marker being tested, the design measures whether a protocol can show a marker that is present. It does not estimate how often each protocol would miss expression in an unselected series of patient samples.
Suboptimal staining in 81.8% of PreservCyt and 58.8% of air-dried preparations
PreservCyt, a methanol-based liquid medium used to collect cells for liquid-based cytology, gave suboptimal staining in 81.8% of preparations. Air-dried preparations, which are commonly made for rapid on-site evaluation, were suboptimal in 58.8%.
A call for harmonised fixation, local validation and external quality assessment
The authors conclude that the fixation-dependent differences point to a need for change in laboratory practice.
“This study demonstrates that fixation protocol significantly impacts ICC performance on non-cell block cytological preparations.”Jain et al., Cancer Cytopathology (2026)
They recommend harmonised pre-analytical practices, robust local validation of each protocol used for ICC, and participation in external quality assessment.
Sources
- Cancer Cytopathology. Evaluating immunocytochemistry performance in lung cancer cytology: An IASLC Cytology Working Group study (2026-10-12). doi.org
Featuring Lung Summit faculty
This study was co-authored by Lung Summit faculty Lukas Bubendorf.
This article was produced independently by the Lung Summit editorial team, without industry funding or input.