Immunoelectron microscopy in the age of molecular pathology.

Abstract

The introduction of molecular biology-based diagnostic procedures in pathology has created substantial expectations in regard to screening, characterization, monitoring, and detection of predisposition to a variety of diseases, most notably malignant neoplasms. It should be emphasized, however, that molecular studies are only one component of the diagnostic process and that more traditional methods are still required in the evaluation of tumors and management of patients. The data obtained from the molecular biology-based studies must be always interpreted in conjunction with the clinical history, immunomorphologic findings, and other pertinent ancillary data. Routine evaluation of tissues using traditional light microscopy remains the backbone of pathologic evaluation. The additive role of molecular diagnostics often depends on how accurate the initial evaluation has been. Ancillary techniques such as immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy remain essential in properly characterizing diseased tissues and in speciation of tumors. Ultrastructural immunolabeling capitalizes on combining these two techniques and providing exquisite immunomorphologic evaluation. The extra time and effort required are more than compensated by the degree of sophistication that can be achieved when this diagnostic technique is utilized and the added expense is rather reasonable. The value of molecular biology-based diagnostics is potentially questionable if the tissue samples are not initially accurately characterized. The question that molecular diagnostics may be trying to answer may be the wrong one or the answer obtained may be interpreted incorrectly if the context of the clinicopathologic situation has not been clearly defined using traditional diagnostic techniques.