Investigation of an appropriate decalcifying agent for bone biopsy specimens submitted for histomorphologic analyses and immunohistochemical studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65166/y1s38453Keywords:
Decalcification, Bone biopsy, Histomorphology, Immunohistochemistry, Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), Formic acid, Hydrochloric acid, Gooding and Stewart solution, Decalcification endpoint, Antigen preservation, protocol optimizationAbstract
Decalcification is a critical pre-analytical step in histopathology for mineralized tissues, yet inappropriate agent selection and endpoint control can compromise histomorphologic detail and reduce the interpretability of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains. This study compared the effectiveness of five decalcifying agents for bone biopsy specimens intended for routine histomorphologic evaluation and downstream IHC: 10% hydrochloric acid (HCl), 15% formic acid (FA), Gooding and Stewart (formalin–formic acid), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and formic acid–EDTA (FEDTA). Ten bone biopsy specimens were decalcified using each agent, and decalcification endpoints were determined via physical and chemical testing. Morphologic preservation was assessed on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained sections using structured scoring of cellular and extracellular features, while IHC performance was evaluated using CD34, S100, SATB2, and SMA markers, scored for signal intensity/reactivity. The fastest decalcification endpoint was achieved by 10% HCl (mean 6.30 hours), whereas EDTA required the longest processing time (mean 159.20 hours). Despite slower turnaround, EDTA produced the highest overall H&E preservation score (mean 13.25/15), indicating superior retention of key histomorphologic structures. In contrast, 15% FA demonstrated relatively weaker SATB2 reactivity (mean 1.70), suggesting greater vulnerability of specific antigen targets under stronger acid conditions. Across the five agents, no statistically significant differences were detected among IHC marker outcomes (all p-values > 0.05), although EDTA and FEDTA tended to yield higher mean marker scores in several comparisons. Overall, EDTA is recommended when maximal morphologic preservation and future tissue usability (repeat IHC and ancillary testing) are priorities, while acid-based agents may be reserved for situations where rapid turnaround is essential and modest trade-offs in tissue integrity are acceptable.
References
Alers, J. C., Krijtenburg, P. J., Vissers, K. J., & van Dekken, H. (1999). Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization: EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry, 47(5), 703-709.
Bourhis, A., Le Flahec, G., & Uguen, A. (2019). Decalcification can cause the failure of BRAF molecular analyses and anti‐BRAFV600E VE1 immunohistochemistry. Pathology International, 69(4), 219-223.
Bourhis, A., Flahec, G., & Uguen, A. (2019). Decalcification of bone specimens with sodium formate does not interfere with KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutation analysis in colorectal cancer. BMC Gastroenterology, 19(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-019-1115-4
Brown, R. (2009). Histologic preparations, common problems and their solutions (pp. 1–10). College of American Pathologists.
Callis, G., & Sterchi, D. (2013). [Title not fully specified in Manuscript A reference list]. Journal of Histotechnology, 21(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1179/his.1998.21.1.49
Carson, F., & Cappellano, C. (2016). Histotechnology: A self-instructional text (4th ed.). ASCP Press.
Chappard, D. (2015). Technical aspects: Bone histology. In Bone cancer 2015 (pp. 5–14). Humana Press.
Chappard, D. (2015). Technical aspects: How do we best prepare bone samples for histologic evaluation? In Bone cancer and metastases (2nd ed., pp. 111–120). Elsevier.
Choi, S., Hong, S., & Yoon, S. (2015). Proposal of an appropriate decalcification method of bone marrow biopsy specimens in the era of expanding genetic molecular study. Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine, 49, 236–242. https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2015.03.16
Choi, S.-E., Hong, S. W., Shin, S.-J., Jeong, J., & Kim, D. (2015). Decalcification of bone metastases of breast cancer. Clinical Pathology, 202080, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5414/CP202080
Dey, P. (2018). Basic and advanced laboratory techniques in histopathology and cytology. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8252-8
Dey, P. (2018). Decalcification of bony and hard tissue for histopathology processing. In Basic and advanced laboratory techniques in histopathology and cytology. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8252-8_4
Eloka, M. E., Sayed, S., & Brierly, J. (2012). The role of a mixture of EDTA and formic acid in decalcification. Polish Journal of Radiology, 77(2), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2012.26773
Gao, Z., & Kahn, L. B. (2005). The application of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of bone tumors and tumor-like lesions. Skeletal radiology, 34(12), 755-770.
Hamad Medical Corporation - Histopathology Section Standard Operating Procedures. (2020). [Institutional SOP]. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Doha, Qatar.
Hao, X., Kalscheur, V., & Muir, A. B. (2002). Decalcification of breast cancer bone metastases with EDTA does not affect ER, PR, and HER2 results. Journal of Histotechnology, 25(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01478880209364643
Kapila, S. N., Natarajan, S., & Boaz, K. (2015). Novel method of decalcification for hard tissues. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 29, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.11.008
Liu, J., Dong, H., Liang, Y., et al. (2017). Effects of different decalcification methods on the immunohistochemical detection of biomarkers in bone metastases of breast cancer. Histochemistry and Cell Biology, 148, 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-017-1939-0
Milestone. (2020). MoL-Decalcifier: EDTA based decalcifying solution [Product page]. https://www.milestonemedsrl.com/product/mol-decalcifier/
Miquelestorena-Standley, E., Jourdan, M.-L., Collin, C., Bouvier, C., Larousserie, F., Aubert, S., & Gomez-Brouchet, A. (2020). Effect of decalcification protocols on immunohistochemistry and molecular analyses of bone samples. Modern Pathology, 33, 1505–1517. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-020-0503-6
Miquelestorena-Standley, E., Jourdan, M.-L., Collin, C., et al. (2020). Effect of decalcification protocols on molecular analysis and immunohistochemistry. Clinical Pathology Review, 12811, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpr.12811
Newcomer Supply. (2020). Decalcification end point set—Technical sheet. https://www.newcomersupply.com/store/product/Decalcification%20End%20Point%20Set.1051.pdf
Schrijver, W. A. M. E., Van Der Groep, P., Hoefnagel, L. D. C., et al. (2016). Influence of decalcification procedures on immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics of bone metastases. American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 40(11), 1500–1508. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000325
Schrijver, W. A., Van Der Groep, P., Hoefnagel, L. D., Ter Hoeve, N. D., Peeters, T., Moelans, C. B., & Van Diest, P. J. (2016). Influence of decalcification procedures on immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology in breast cancer. Modern Pathology, 29(12), 1460-1470.
Thorat, R., Ingram, D. B., & Ferguson, A. (2011). Simultaneous fixation and decalcification. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, 70(8), 724–732. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnen/70.8.724
van Es, S. C., Bollen, E. C. M., van der Groep, P., et al. (2019). EDTA decalcification preserves ER, PR and HER2 results in breast cancer bone metastases. Histopathology, 75(4), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14011
Van Es, S. C., van der Vegt, B., Bensch, F., Gerritse, S., Van Helden, E. J., Boon, E., ... & Schröder, C. P. (2019). Decalcification of breast cancer bone metastases with EDTA does not affect ER, PR, and HER2 results. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 43(10), 1355-1360.
Wickham, C. L., Boyce, R. W., & Prokopenko, O. A. (2000). The effects of decalcification on DNA in bone specimens: A comparison of EDTA and formic acid. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry, 48(8), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-200008000-00014
Wickham, C. L., Sarsfield, P., Joyner, M. V., Jones, D. B., Ellard, S., & Wilkins, B. S. (2000). Formic acid decalcification of bone marrow trephines degrades DNA: Alternative use of EDTA allows the amplification and sequencing of relatively long PCR products. Molecular Pathology, 53(6), 336. https://doi.org/10.1136/mp.53.6.336
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Health & Business Analytics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their articles but grant the International Journal of Health & Business Analytics (IJHBA Press) the right of first publication.
