title: Diagnostic accuracy of Wright-Giemsa and rhodanine stain protocols for detection and semi-quantitative grading of copper in canine liver aspirates.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Canine hepatic copper content has been increasing. Recognition of canine copper-associated hepatopathies is becoming more common.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Wright-Giemsa (WG) and rhodanine staining for detection of increased canine hepatic copper following a proposed cytologic protocol for semi-quantitative evaluation of liver aspirates and the effect of previous WG staining.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospectively, 40 canine hepatic WG-stained cytology cases were rhodanine stained. Diagnostic performance of WG staining for increased hepatic copper was evaluated. A rhodanine-stained cytologic copper grading system was developed. Prospectively, 67 canine liver samples with quantitative copper measurement, a WG-then rhodanine-stained slide, and a non-WG rhodanine-stained slide were used to assess the performance of the grading system and the effect of previous WG staining.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Copper was not described in 40 retrospective cases on initial cytologic evaluation; 8/40 cases had increased copper content after rhodanine staining or quantitative copper assessment. Prior WG staining and destaining significantly affected the cytologic copper grade but not the diagnostic performance as measured by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. Quantitative copper concentration and previously WG-stained copper grade were moderately correlated (n = 67, ρ = .79 [.68-.87]). For detection of ≥ 600 ppm, dry weight (dw) copper, sensitivity was .75 and specificity was .97. For detection of ≥ 1500 ppm, dw copper, sensitivity was 1.0 and specificity was .97.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Wright-Giemsa staining alone does not reliably detect hepatic copper. Grading of rhodanine-stained canine hepatic cytologic samples demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance for detection of copper content.
authors.affiliation: Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
authors.forename: A Russell
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
authors.forename: Emily
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Coffey
authors.affiliation: Colorado State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
authors.forename: Dwayne
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Hamar
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001399:Azure Stains; D001707:Biopsy, Needle / Q000662:veterinary; D004396:Coloring Agents; D003300:Copper / Q000032:analysis* / Q000633:toxicity; D003581:Cytodiagnosis / Q000662:veterinary; D004283:Dog Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*; D004285:Dogs; D005260:Female; D008099:Liver / Q000737:chemistry; D008107:Liver Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000662:veterinary*; D008297:Male; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012236:Rhodanine; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013194:Staining and Labeling
chemical_list: D001399:Azure Stains; D004396:Coloring Agents; D003300:Copper; D012236:Rhodanine
keywords: Animal; cytology; hepatotoxicology; special stains; veterinary