Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Accuracy of two stains to detect copper in dog liver samples
By Moore, A Russell et al.·Published in Veterinary clinical pathology·2016·Department of Microbiology, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Diagnostic accuracy of Wright-Giemsa and rhodanine stain protocols for detection and semi-quantitative grading of copper in canine liver aspirates.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how well two staining methods could detect copper levels in liver samples from dogs. Increased copper in the liver can lead to serious health issues, but the initial Wright-Giemsa staining often missed this problem. When researchers used a second method called rhodanine staining, they found that it was much better at identifying high copper levels. This means that if your dog has liver issues, a rhodanine stain could provide a more accurate diagnosis of copper-related problems.
People also search for: dog liver disease copper levels · canine liver aspirate test · rhodanine stain for dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine hepatic copper content has been increasing. Recognition of canine copper-associated hepatopathies is becoming more common. OBJECTIVES: 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.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27701765/