Options for Amyloid Typing in Renal Pathology: The Advantages of Frozen Section Immunofluorescence and a Summary of General Recommendations Regarding Immunohistochemistry Methods

  • Maria M. PickenEmail author
Part of the Current Clinical Pathology book series (CCPATH)


Amyloid typing by antibody-based methods continues to play a major role in clinical practice. However, it must be stressed that the immunohistochemistry of amyloid differs markedly from that used routinely in other areas of general surgical pathology. In this chapter, another specialized form of immunohistochemistry, namely immunofluorescence performed on frozen sections, will be discussed. This technique is routinely used by renal pathology laboratories in North America and many other parts of the world and contributes significantly to amyloid typing in clinical practice. The advantages of amyloid typing on frozen sections, as typically performed in renal pathology, over immunohistochemistry performed on paraffin sections, as typically used in general surgical pathology, are discussed. The applicability of immunofluorescence on frozen tissue to non-renal pathology specimens is also reviewed. Finally, specific issues related to amyloid immunohistochemistry versus general immunohistochemistry and other methods are discussed. General recommendations based on a consensus conference held during the XIIth International Symposium on Amyloidosis regarding amyloid typing in surgical pathology are also summarized.


Immunofluorescence Frozen sections Amyloid typing Renal pathology Fat biopsy 


  1. 1.
    Picken MM, Westermark P. Amyloid detection and typing: summary of current practice and recommendations of the consensus group. Amyloid. 2011;18 Suppl 1:48–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Picken MM. Current practice in amyloid detection and typing among renal pathologists. Amyloid. 2011;18 Suppl 1:73–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leung N, Nasr SH, Sethi S. How I treat amyloidosis: the importance of accurate diagnosis and amyloid typing. Blood. 2012;120(16):3206–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Picken MM. Amyloid typing in surgical pathology—experience of a single institution. In: Skinner M, Berk JL, Connors LH, Seldin DC, editors. XIth International Symposium on Amyloidosis; Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007. p. 289–91.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schönland SO1, Hegenbart U, Bochtler T, Mangatter A, Hansberg M, Ho AD, Lohse P, Röcken C. Immunohistochemistry in the classification of systemic forms of amyloidosis: a systematic investigation of 117 patients. Blood. 2012;119(2):488–93. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-358507. Epub 2011 Nov 21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linke RP. On typing amyloidosis using immunohistochemistry. Detailed illustrations, review and a note on mass spectrometry. Prog Histochem Cytochem. 2012;47(2):61–132. Epub 2012 Jul 20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera GA, Picken MM. Renal diseases associated with plasma cell dyscrasias, amyloidoses, waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and cryoglobuminemic nephropathies. In: Jennette JC, Olson JL, Silva FG, Agati VD’, editors. Heptinstall’s pathology of the kidney. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 951–1014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker PD, Cavallo T, Bonsib SM. Ad hoc committee on renal biopsy guidelines of the renal pathology society. Practice guidelines for the renal biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(12):1555–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallo G, Picken MM, Buxbaum J, Frangione B. Nonamyloidotic monoclonal immunoglobulin deposits lack amyloid P component. Mod Pathol. 1988;1:453–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fermand JP, Bridoux F, Kyle RA, Kastritis E, Weiss BM, Cook MA, Drayson MT, Dispenzieri A, Leung N. International kidney and monoclonal gammopathy research group. How I treat monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS). Blood. 2013;122(22):3583–90. Epub 2013 Oct 9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Picken MM. New insights into systemic amyloidosis: the importance of diagnosis of specific type. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2007;16(3):196–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Hutten H, Mihatsch M, Lobeck H, Rudolph B, Eriksson M, Röcken C. Prevalence and origin of amyloid in kidney biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(8):1198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picken MM. Amyloidosis-where are we now and where are we heading? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(4):545–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Said SM, Sethi S, Valeri AM, Leung N, Cornell LD, Fidler ME, Herrera Hernandez L, Vrana JA, Theis JD, Quint PS, Dogan A, Nasr SH. Renal amyloidosis: origin and clinicopathologic correlations of 474 recent cases. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8:1515–23.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen CP, Walker PD, Weiss DT, Solomon A. Prevalence and morphology of leukocyte chemotactic factor 2-associated amyloid in renal biopsies. Kidney Int. 2010;77(9):816–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Said SM, Sethi S, Valeri AM, Chang A, Nast CC, Krahl L, Molloy P, Barry M, Fidler ME, Cornell LD, Leung N, Vrana JA, Theis JD, Dogan A, Nasr SH. Renal leukocyte chemotactic factor 2-associated amyloidosis. Kidney Int. 2014;86:370–7. Published online 22 Jan 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larsen CP, Kossmann RJ, Beggs ML, Solomon A, Walker PD. Renal leukocyte chemotactic factor 2 amyloidosis (ALECT2): a case series detailing clinical, morphologic, and genetic features. Kidney Int. 2014;86:378–82. Published online 12 Feb 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Picken MM. Alect2 amyloidosis: primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Kidney Int. 2014;86(2):229–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mereuta OM, Theis JD, Vrana JA, Law ME, Grogg KL, Dasari S, Chandan VS, Wu TT, Jimenez-Zepeda VH, Fonseca R, Dispenzieri A, Kurtin PJ, Dogan A. Leukocyte cell-derived chemotaxin 2 (LECT2)–associated amyloidosis is a frequent cause of hepatic amyloidosis in the United States. Blood. 2014;123(10):1479–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collins AB, Smith RN, Stone JR. Classification of amyloid deposits in diagnostic cardiac specimens by immunofluorescence. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2009;18(4):205–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Picken MM. Modern approaches to the treatment of amyloidosis—the critical importance of early detection in surgical pathology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2013;20(6):424–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Owen-Casey MP, Sim R, Cook HT, Roufosse CA, Gillmore JD, Gilbertson JA, Hutchison CA, Howie AJ. Value of antibodies to free light chains in immunoperoxidase studies of renal biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:661–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sethi S, Theis JD, Leung N, Dispenzieri A, Nasr SH, Fidler ME, Cornell LD, Gamez JD, Vrana JA, Dogan A. Mass spectrometry-based proteomic diagnosis of renal immunoglobulin heavy chain amyloidosis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(12):2180–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nasr SH, Said SM, Valeri AM, Sethi S, Fidler ME, Cornell LD, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, Buadi FK, Vrana JA, Theis JD, Dogan A, Leung N. The diagnosis and characteristics of renal heavy-chain and heavy/light-chain amyloidosis and their comparison with renal light-chain amyloidosis. Kidney Int. 2013;83(3):463–70. Epub 2013 Jan 9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Picken MM. Non-light-chain immunoglobulin amyloidosis: time to expand or refine the spectrum to include light + heavy chain amyloidosis? Kidney Int. 2013;83(3):353–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sipe JD, Benson MD, Buxbaum JN, Ikeda S, Merlini G, Saraiva MJ, Westermark P. Nomenclature 2014: amyloid fibril proteins and clinical classification of the amyloidosis. Amyloid. 2014;21(4):221–4. 2014 Sep 29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mölne J, Breimer ME, Svalander CT. Immunoperoxidase versus immunofluorescence in the assessment of human renal biopsies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45(4):674–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Furness PN. Acp. Best practice no 160. Renal biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53(6):433–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nasr SH, Galgano SJ, Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, D’Agati VD. Immunofluorescence on pronase-digested paraffin sections: a valuable salvage technique for renal biopsies. Kidney Int. 2006;70(12):2148–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsen C. Leukocyte chemotactic factor 2 amyloidosis can be reliably diagnosed by immunohistochemical staining. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(10):2179. Epub 2014 Jul 16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Novak L, Cook WJ, Herrera GA, Sanders PW. AL-amyloidosis is underdiagnosed in renal biopsies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004;19(12):3050–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Satoskar AA, Burdge K, Cowden DJ, Nadasdy GM, Hebert LA, Nadasdy T. Typing of amyloidosis in renal biopsies: diagnostic pitfalls. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(6):917–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Picken MM, Herrera GA. The burden of “sticky” amyloid: typing challenges. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(6):850–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lachmann HJ, Booth DR, Booth SE, Bybee A, Gillbertson JA, Gillmore JD, Pepys MB, Hawkins PN. Misdiagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis as AL (primary) amyloidosis. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(23):1786–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Comenzo RL, Zhou P, Fleisher M, Clark B, Teruya-Feldstein J. Seeking confidence in the diagnosis of systemic AL (Ig light-chain) amyloidosis: patients can have both monoclonal gammopathies and hereditary amyloid proteins. Blood. 2006;107(9):3489–91. Epub 2006 Jan 26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Picken MM, Hazenberg BPC, Obici L. Report from the diagnostic interactive session. In: Skinner M, Berk JL, Connors LH, Seldin DC, editors. XIth International Symposium on Amyloidosis; Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007. p. 377–82.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rowczenio D, Dogan A, Theis JD, Vrana JA, Lachmann HJ, Wechalekar AD, Gilbertson JA, Hunt T, Gibbs SD, Sattianayagam PT, Pinney JH, Hawkins PN, Gillmore JD. Amyloidogenicity and clinical phenotype associated with five novel mutations in apolipoprotein A-I. Am J Pathol. 2011;179(4):1978–87. Epub 2011 Aug 5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyLoyola University Medical Center, Loyola University ChicagoMaywoodUSA

Personalised recommendations