Hematoxylin and Eosin Counterstaining Protocol for Immunohistochemistry Interpretation and Diagnosis.

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining is a well-established technique in histopathology. However, immunohistochemistry (IHC) interpretation is done exclusively with hematoxylin counterstaining. Our goal was to investigate the potential of H&E as counterstaining (H&E-IHC) to allow for visualization of a marker while confirming the diagnosis on the same slide. The quality of immunostaining and the fast-technical performance were the main criteria to select the final protocol. We stained multiple diagnostic tissues with class I IHC tests with different subcellular localization markers (anti-CK7, CK20, synaptophysin, CD20, HMB45, and Ki-67) and with double-staining on prostate tissues with anti-high molecular weight keratins/p63 (DAB detection) and p504s (alkaline phosphatase detection). To validate the efficacy of the counterstaining, we stained tissue microarrays from the Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (cIQc) with class II IHC tests (ER, PR, HER2, and p53 markers). Interobserver and intraobserver concordance was assessed by κ statistics. Excellent agreement of H&E-IHC interpretation was observed in comparison with standard IHC from our laboratory (κ, 0.87 to 1.00), and with the cIQc reference values (κ, 0.81 to 1.00). Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was excellent (κ, 0.89 to 1.00 and 0.87 to 1.00, respectively). We therefore show for the first time the potential of using H&E counterstaining for IHC interpretation. We recommend the H&E-IHC protocol to enhance diagnostic precision for the clinical workflow and research studies.

Identification of the Transcription Factor Relationships Associated with Androgen Deprivation Therapy Response and Metastatic Progression in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with locally advanced or recurrent prostate cancer typically undergo androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but the benefits are often short-lived and the responses variable. ADT failure results in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), which inevitably leads to metastasis. We hypothesized that differences in tumor transcriptional programs may reflect differential responses to ADT and subsequent metastasis. RESULTS: We performed whole transcriptome analysis of 20 patient-matched Pre-ADT biopsies and 20 Post-ADT prostatectomy specimens, and identified two subgroups of patients (high impact and low impact groups) that exhibited distinct transcriptional changes in response to ADT. We found that all patients lost the AR-dependent subtype (PCS2) transcriptional signatures. The high impact group maintained the more aggressive subtype (PCS1) signal, while the low impact group more resembled an AR-suppressed (PCS3) subtype. Computational analyses identified transcription factor coordinated groups (TFCGs) enriched in the high impact group network. Leveraging a large public dataset of over 800 metastatic and primary samples, we identified 33 TFCGs in common between the high impact group and metastatic lesions, including SOX4/FOXA2/GATA4, and a TFCG containing JUN, JUNB, JUND, FOS, FOSB, and FOSL1. The majority of metastatic TFCGs were subsets of larger TFCGs in the high impact group network, suggesting a refinement of critical TFCGs in prostate cancer progression. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified TFCGs associated with pronounced initial transcriptional response to ADT, aggressive signatures, and metastasis. Our findings suggest multiple new hypotheses that could lead to novel combination therapies to prevent the development of CRPC following ADT.