Concanavalin A—Peroxidase labeling in cervical exfoliative cytopathology: II. Routine assessment of labeling results

• Published in: Gynecologic oncology Vol. 22; no. 2; pp. 224 - 232
• Main Authors: Davina, J.Hans M., Stadhouders, Adrianus M., van Haelst, Urbain J.G.M., de Graaf, Ruurd, Kenemans, Peter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: San Diego, CA Elsevier Inc 1985; Elsevier
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnosis; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - pathology; Concanavalin A - analogs & derivatives; Endocrinology; Female; Horseradish Peroxidase; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; Microscopy; Pathology. Cytology. Biochemistry. Spectrometry. Miscellaneous investigative techniques; Peroxidases; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology; Vaginal Smears - methods; Vaginal Smears - standards; Human; Screening; Enzymatic method; Tagging; Tumor; Uterine cervix; Technique; Woman; Vaginal smear; Female genital diseases
• ISSN: 0090-8258; 1095-6859
• DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(85)90030-7

Concanavalin A-peroxidase (Con A-HRP) labeling of exfoliated cells of the uterine cervix have been shown to possess clinical significance in the detection of cancer. In the present study, a more simple method is used instead of the earlier applied complicated method. These two procedures for the assessment of the labeling results are compared. The first method is an objective machine-aided assessment procedure, consisting of a light microscope connected with a video system used in the sliced mode. The second is a more subjective method using human visual assessment with a light microscope only. The latter method would be suitable for routine use, if it shows similar Con A-HRP labeling results as obtained with the machine-aided procedure. In comparison with the machine-aided assessment procedure, the visual assessment procedure is less accurate. Moreover, the visual assessment is accompanied by intraobserver (between day) and interobserver variations. Although the discriminatory capacity in the detection of cancer patients is significantly lower for the human visual assessment procedure, this difference is small. It is of clinical relevance that in general a complete discrimination of healthy individuals and cancer patients is still possible. Therefore, visual assessment with a light microscope only, is preferred because of its simple equipment, which allows this procedure to be used as a routine method.