Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens are invaluable resources for both prospective and retrospective biomedical studies, offering significant potential for molecular diagnostics using analytical omics tools.

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue specimens are often accompanied by detailed clinical histories, enabling robust translational research and providing easy access to large, well-documented datasets. Their potential for biomarker discovery highlights their essential role in advancing modern tissue analysis and targeted therapy.

The growing demand for validated biomarkers in diagnostics further highlights the importance of FFPE specimens, which are routinely prepared for pathology and archived with associated clinical outcomes. Extensive studies have examined their utility in molecular diagnostics, focusing on:

·         DNA and protein extraction methods.

·         Their suitability for biomarker research.

·         The influence of preanalytical factors like fixation protocols and archival time¹.

Molecular analysis of FFPE samples

FFPE tissues offer advantages for nucleic acid extraction and RNA-seq¹⁵, such as availability, clinical data connections, and links to patient outcomes. A single 10 μm tissue section provides sufficient RNA for RNA-seq, with gene set approaches more effective than single-gene analysis in distinguishing cancer subtypes. However, nucleic acid is often degraded and chemically modified.

Nucleic acid extraction

The extraction of DNA and RNA from FFPE samples is challenging due to cross-linking and degradation caused by formalin fixation, which can affect the quality of nucleic acids¹.

Techniques like solid phase reverse immobilization (SPRI) enable the simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA, while automated systems use ultrasonication and liquid handling to streamline the process and improve yield¹⁶.

Quantitative measurement of mRNA levels using techniques like qRT-PCR, microarrays, and next-generation sequencing is essential for studying gene expression and understanding disease mechanisms, with FFPE tissue samples providing a valuable resource¹⁷. For example, tissue microarrays (TMA) have increased interest in preserving cut slides for large-scale immunohistochemical studies. In clinical settings, cut slides are commonly used instead of original blocks for molecular studies, including predictive biomarker analysis¹⁸.

The advanced extraction techniques provide more reliable and efficient nucleic acid recovery, facilitating accurate downstream molecular analyses in both research and clinical settings.

Overcoming challenges like degradation and cross-linking

Challenges like crosslinking or the formation of covalent bonds between the nucleic acids are common. Hence, researchers and clinicians have developed various strategies to optimize nucleic acid extraction from FFPE tissues¹⁹.

These include extended incubation times to ensure thorough tissue digestion, the use of enzymatic treatments such as proteinase K to break down proteinaceous material, and the application of gentle mechanical disruption (like bead-beating) to help release nucleic acids. Furthermore, commercial assay kits explicitly designed for FFPE samples have integrated multiple steps to enhance recovery and minimize degradation, making the process more reliable^20,21,22.

Applications in genomics, proteomics, and biomarker discovery

FFPE tissue samples are invaluable resources for molecular studies due to their wide availability in pathology archives and their preservation of tissue morphology. These tissues are increasingly used for genomic, proteomic, and biomarker discovery studies, providing critical insights into disease mechanisms, cancer progression, and therapeutic targets²³.

Genomic and transcriptomic analysis

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) enable the analysis of genomes, epigenomes, and transcriptomes using limited and fragmented nucleic acids from FFPE tissues at a relatively low cost. For example, NGS-based DNA sequencing on FFPE samples show a strong correlation with matched fresh samples in detecting genome-wide alterations. Later studies show optimized input DNA usage and the benefits of targeted resequencing in minimizing fixation-induced noise.

Reliable NGS methods for FFPE samples would unlock pathology archives for high-throughput profiling, facilitating extensive retrospective and prospective clinical studies. This capability reduces the reliance on cryopreserved samples, streamlining molecular analyses in both research and diagnostics.

Advances in library preparation, such as short-read sequencing, low-input methods, and repair techniques, have made robust sequencing possible. Targeted sequencing and specialized RNA-seq protocols help overcome fragmentation by focusing on specific genomic regions or short transcripts.

FFPE-based genomics samples are particularly valuable in oncology, allowing the identification of mutations, copy number variations, and epigenetic changes essential for understanding cancer and genetic disorders²⁴.

Proteomic analysis

Proteomic analysis of FFPE tissues focus on protein expression, modifications, and interactions to uncover disease mechanisms and biomarkers, though formalin-induced cross-linking complicates protein extraction²⁵. Analyzing FFPE samples at the proteome level is appealing, as many diseases manifest through altered protein expression or activity, and most therapeutic interventions target proteins²⁶.

Advances such as heat-induced retrieval, detergents like SDS, and technologies like pressure cycling and ultrasonication have improved protein recovery from FFPE tissues²⁷.

Optimized workflows like automated sonication-free acid-assisted proteome (ASAP), now enable efficient protein extraction, reducing processing time and costs while maintaining high-quality data and proteome coverage. These advancements streamline FFPE proteomics, improving reproducibility and scalability for high-throughput analysis in clinical and research applications²⁸.

Reverse-phase protein arrays (RPPA), a high-throughput antibody-based method, enable the quantification of protein expression and post-translational modifications, making it a powerful tool for profiling signaling pathways and identifying therapeutic targets, particularly in cancer research²⁹.

A large-scale proteomic study analyzed 1,220 tumor specimens from six cancer types over three years, testing the robustness and scalability of a new workflow. Key findings include improved reproducibility through peptide quantification, the necessity of retention time standards for LC-MS/MS consistency, and the ability to profile over 4,000 proteins per tumor. This study generated the first comprehensive pan-cancer proteome resource for FFPE material, revealing tissue- and cancer-specific protein fingerprints²⁶.

Staining techniques for FFPE sections

Conventional histological stains, such as hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), are essential tools in histology, providing complementary diagnostic information. Traditionally, these methods require separate slides, which limit tissue availability and prevent direct single-cell comparisons due to differences in tissue sections. Advances in staining techniques now allow for the simultaneous application of conventional stains and IHC on the same slide using specialized chromogens that do not interfere with each other.

This approach preserves tissue, enables single-cell-level analysis, and facilitates clear visualization through advanced imaging systems like dual-camera microscopy and multispectral imaging.

Such innovations enhance diagnostic accuracy, allow flexible image analysis, and expand the utility of specialized staining methods in histology and cytology⁹.

H&E staining

H&E staining is essential for diagnosing diseases and studying biological processes by examining tissue morphology, but conventional methods are prone to handling errors and inconsistent results¹⁰.

Purpose and methodology

H&E staining is a widely used technique for visualizing tissue morphology in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections, which is important for clinical diagnosis and research.

Primary antibodies are applied to the tissue sections, along with isotype control antibodies to monitor non-specific binding, and incubation occurs for 30-120 minutes at room temperature or overnight at 2-8°C.

Hematoxylin stains nucleic acids a blue-purple color, while eosin stains proteins and peptides pink, revealing detailed cellular structures like nuclei, cytoplasm, and extracellular matrix¹¹. In clinical pathology, H&E staining is a cornerstone for diagnosing a wide variety of diseases, including cancers¹².

Enhancing visualization of cellular structures

·         Novel methods using removable fluorescent dyes simulate H&E staining, enabling the reuse of tissue sections for multiplexed immunofluorescent (mIF) staining without compromising performance¹³.

·         Workflows have been optimized to integrate H&E staining with multiplex immunofluorescence, allowing co-registration of molecularly defined cellular phenotyping with traditional H&E images. These advancements enhance the understanding of tissue morphology and cellular interactions, particularly in cancer research and diagnostics¹³.

·         Solution-free H&E staining technique using agarose hydrogel patches minimize color variation and staining artifacts through controlled stamping. This method provides a reliable and adaptable alternative to traditional staining, making it particularly useful in resource-limited settings without compromising staining quality¹⁰.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and specialized staining

Immunohistochemistry allows for the detection of specific proteins using particular primary antibodies, enhancing diagnostic capabilities by enabling precise classification of cancers, such as distinguishing squamous cell carcinoma from adenocarcinoma.

However, analyzing tumors with IHC can be challenging when tissue samples are limited, as each stain typically requires a separate slide, especially in small biopsies or fine needle aspirates.

While IHC multiplexing and de-staining techniques exist, they can be time-consuming and cumbersome, particularly when aligning and comparing the same specimen regions across multiple staining processes⁹.

Deparaffinization and antigen retrieval

To remove the paraffin wax, the slides with tissue sections are immersed in xylene or a xylene substitute. This process is known as deparaffinization and is repeated for 2-3 changes of xylene.

Formalin fixation, commonly used in light microscopy, can create cross-linkages between epitopes and proteins, hindering antigen detection for immunohistochemistry. To retrieve antigens, deparaffinized tissue sections are typically treated with heat or enzymatic digestion, though standardization is difficult across laboratories.

A new antigen-retrieval protocol using tris-EDTA-SDS buffer at reduced heat for 40 minutes improves antigen unmasking, reducing antibody use and labor while offering more efficient results than conventional methods¹⁴.

Molecular analysis of FFPE samples

FFPE tissues offer advantages for nucleic acid extraction and RNA-seq¹⁵, such as availability, clinical data connections, and links to patient outcomes. A single 10 μm tissue section provides sufficient RNA for RNA-seq, with gene set approaches more effective than single-gene analysis in distinguishing cancer subtypes. However, nucleic acid is often degraded and chemically modified.

Nucleic acid extraction

The extraction of DNA and RNA from FFPE samples is challenging due to cross-linking and degradation caused by formalin fixation, which can affect the quality of nucleic acids¹.

Techniques like solid phase reverse immobilization (SPRI) enable the simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA, while automated systems use ultrasonication and liquid handling to streamline the process and improve yield¹⁶.

Quantitative measurement of mRNA levels using techniques like qRT-PCR, microarrays, and next-generation sequencing is essential for studying gene expression and understanding disease mechanisms, with FFPE tissue samples providing a valuable resource¹⁷. For example, tissue microarrays (TMA) have increased interest in preserving cut slides for large-scale immunohistochemical studies. In clinical settings, cut slides are commonly used instead of original blocks for molecular studies, including predictive biomarker analysis¹⁸.

The advanced extraction techniques provide more reliable and efficient nucleic acid recovery, facilitating accurate downstream molecular analyses in both research and clinical settings.

Overcoming challenges like degradation and cross-linking

Challenges like crosslinking or the formation of covalent bonds between the nucleic acids are common. Hence, researchers and clinicians have developed various strategies to optimize nucleic acid extraction from FFPE tissues¹⁹.

These include extended incubation times to ensure thorough tissue digestion, the use of enzymatic treatments such as proteinase K to break down proteinaceous material, and the application of gentle mechanical disruption (like bead-beating) to help release nucleic acids. Furthermore, commercial assay kits explicitly designed for FFPE samples have integrated multiple steps to enhance recovery and minimize degradation, making the process more reliable^20,21,22.

Applications in genomics, proteomics, and biomarker discovery

FFPE tissue samples are invaluable resources for molecular studies due to their wide availability in pathology archives and their preservation of tissue morphology. These tissues are increasingly used for genomic, proteomic, and biomarker discovery studies, providing critical insights into disease mechanisms, cancer progression, and therapeutic targets²³.

Genomic and transcriptomic analysis

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) enable the analysis of genomes, epigenomes, and transcriptomes using limited and fragmented nucleic acids from FFPE tissues at a relatively low cost. For example, NGS-based DNA sequencing on FFPE samples show a strong correlation with matched fresh samples in detecting genome-wide alterations. Later studies show optimized input DNA usage and the benefits of targeted resequencing in minimizing fixation-induced noise.

Reliable NGS methods for FFPE samples would unlock pathology archives for high-throughput profiling, facilitating extensive retrospective and prospective clinical studies. This capability reduces the reliance on cryopreserved samples, streamlining molecular analyses in both research and diagnostics.

Advances in library preparation, such as short-read sequencing, low-input methods, and repair techniques, have made robust sequencing possible. Targeted sequencing and specialized RNA-seq protocols help overcome fragmentation by focusing on specific genomic regions or short transcripts.

FFPE-based genomics samples are particularly valuable in oncology, allowing the identification of mutations, copy number variations, and epigenetic changes essential for understanding cancer and genetic disorders²⁴.

Proteomic analysis

Proteomic analysis of FFPE tissues focus on protein expression, modifications, and interactions to uncover disease mechanisms and biomarkers, though formalin-induced cross-linking complicates protein extraction²⁵. Analyzing FFPE samples at the proteome level is appealing, as many diseases manifest through altered protein expression or activity, and most therapeutic interventions target proteins²⁶.

Advances such as heat-induced retrieval, detergents like SDS, and technologies like pressure cycling and ultrasonication have improved protein recovery from FFPE tissues²⁷.

Optimized workflows like automated sonication-free acid-assisted proteome (ASAP), now enable efficient protein extraction, reducing processing time and costs while maintaining high-quality data and proteome coverage. These advancements streamline FFPE proteomics, improving reproducibility and scalability for high-throughput analysis in clinical and research applications²⁸.

Reverse-phase protein arrays (RPPA), a high-throughput antibody-based method, enable the quantification of protein expression and post-translational modifications, making it a powerful tool for profiling signaling pathways and identifying therapeutic targets, particularly in cancer research²⁹.

A large-scale proteomic study analyzed 1,220 tumor specimens from six cancer types over three years, testing the robustness and scalability of a new workflow. Key findings include improved reproducibility through peptide quantification, the necessity of retention time standards for LC-MS/MS consistency, and the ability to profile over 4,000 proteins per tumor. This study generated the first comprehensive pan-cancer proteome resource for FFPE material, revealing tissue- and cancer-specific protein fingerprints²⁶.

Challenges and quality control in FFPE analysis

Despite the importance of the FFPE in research and medicine, challenges exist in its analysis due to DNA fragmentation and chemical modifications that can interfere with molecular assays³⁰.

Quality control is essential to ensure the preservation of nucleic acids and assess sample integrity, as improper storage or handling can lead to degradation and unreliable results. To overcome these obstacles, advanced techniques and rigorous protocols are necessary to maintain the accuracy and reproducibility of FFPE-based analyses in both research and clinical applications³¹.

Common issues in FFPE processing

Common issues in FFPE processing include incomplete tissue fixation, which can lead to antigen degradation and compromised diagnostic results. Inadequate dehydration or clearing during processing contributes to tissue damage and loss of biomolecule integrity³³. Additionally, improper storage conditions exacerbate the degradation of proteins and nucleic acids, affecting the reliability of downstream analyses¹⁸.

DNA/RNA degradation and protein cross-linking

FFPE tissue is commonly used for preserving human tissue specimens due to its cost-effectiveness, room-temperature storage, and suitability for analyses like immunohistochemistry and RNA preparation.

RNA extracted from FFPE tissue is often affected by degradation, cross-linking protein, shorter sequencing reads, and environmental factors such as oxidation, which impact its integrity and reliability for applications like RNA sequencing^26,32.

Some of the approaches to address these challenges and improve the usability of FFPE-derived RNA for diagnostic purposes are:

·         Optimizing storage conditions.

·         Refining RNA isolation methods.

·         Exploring environmentally friendly alternatives to standard deparaffinization. agents, such as D-limonene.

Formalin-induced sequence artifacts

Formalin-induced sequence artifacts in FFPE samples occur during NGS, primarily due to formaldehyde-induced DNA modifications such as cytosine deamination to uracil.

These artifacts can be minimized by³³:

·         Ensuring accurate DNA quantification.

·         Using primers suited for fragmented FFPE DNA.

·         Selecting DNA polymerases like Pfu, which terminate elongation upon encountering uracil.

Additionally, sequencing both sense and antisense strands allows for high accuracy in identifying artifacts, as true mutations will appear in both strands, whereas artifacts typically occur in only one.

Loss of antigenicity

Loss of antigenicity in archival FFPE tissue sections is a major issue affecting both diagnostic histopathology and molecular studies.

Retained endogenous water during inadequate tissue processing and high humidity during storage significantly degrades proteins and reduces immunoreactivity, with humidity effects being temperature dependent.

Minimizing exposure to water and ensuring optimal tissue processing is essential to preserving antigenicity, though the exact parameters for storing unstained slides require further research¹⁸.

Strategies for quality control

FFPE quality control (QC) materials are used to validate, verify, and serve as controls for molecular assays, ensuring reproducibility and accuracy in diagnostic testing.

These methods enable the creation of sustainable and reproducible FFPE QC products by embedding test cells with specific markers in a negative cell background for use in performance analysis, including limit-of-detection studies.

The process involves steps such as mixing cellular material with a gelling polymer, creating uniform paraffin-embedded blocks, and sectioning them, resulting in QC samples that support the evaluation of disease markers, DNA isolation, and assay consistency³¹.

Sample quality assessment techniques

Assessing the quality of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) extracted from FFPE samples is essential to determine their suitability for analysis and ensure reliable and reproducible results. Several techniques are commonly used to evaluate sample quality, focusing on parameters such as integrity, purity, quantity, and amplifiability. Some of the FFPE sample quality assessment methods include:

Spectrophotometry analysis

Spectrophotometry is a quick and widely used method to assess nucleic acid quality by measuring purity and contamination. The 260/280 absorbance ratio (~1.8) is used to determine protein contamination, and the 260/230 ratio (2.0–2.2) is used as a secondary measure to detect contaminants like salts or phenol.

However, this method does not assess DNA/RNA integrity or amplifiability, which is essential for FFPE-derived samples, as DNA absorbance is affected by the solvent’s pH and ionic strength. Further, acidic or basic solutions can skew 260/280 ratios³⁴.

Fluorometric analysis

Fluorometric assays provide more accurate nucleic acid quantification than spectrophotometry by using dyes that specifically bind to DNA or RNA. This approach minimizes interference from contaminants such as proteins or solvents. Fluorometric methods are particularly effective for precise measurements, even with low concentrations of nucleic acids from degraded FFPE samples³⁵.

Other techniques

Metrics from library preparation for next-generation sequencing help evaluate sample quality. Low library yield can indicate degraded or insufficient DNA, while high PCR duplicate levels suggest poor-quality input affecting library generation. Additionally, uneven coverage in FFPE samples often reflects low DNA quality, underscoring the need for thorough quality assessment before sequencing.

A single-library approach with DNA repair can reduce errors by 20-40%, while multi-library strategies may further enhance accuracy. Using replicates, where only consistently detected variants are retained, helps eliminate artifacts or distortions caused in DNA sequencing data due to DNA damage in FFPE. Combining untreated and repaired DNA or different repair protocols improves results, as pseudorandomised artifacts cancel out in replicate combinations, benefiting NGS of FFPE-DNA³⁰.

Methods for optimizing FFPE sample preparation and analysis

• Tissue ischemia conditions: Maintaining tissue ischemia at 4°C for less than 48 hours or at 25°C for a short duration (0.5 hours) minimizes RNA degradation.
• Fixation conditions: Using 48-hour formalin fixation at 25°C helps in optimal preservation.
• Sampling method: Collecting samples from FFPE scrolls instead of sections improves RNA quality³⁶.

Comparisons with fresh-frozen tissues

FFPE is cost-effective and preserves tissue morphology but results in DNA degradation, whereas freezing at -80°C avoids these issues and is preferred for DNA analysis. Both techniques have certain advantages and disadvantages³⁷.

Strengths and limitations of FFPE versus fresh-frozen samples

Fresh-frozen tissues are ideal for detecting gene mutations due to superior DNA preservation. Proteomic studies of fresh frozen tissue provide deeper proteome coverage and enable post-translational modification analysis but are often constrained by limited specimen availability. This limitation makes it challenging to conduct large-scale or retrospective studies. Further, their use is limited in clinical practice because of strict handling protocols and high costs associated with ultralow-temperature storage^26,38.

In contrast, FFPE tissues are widely available, cost-effective and easier to transport and preserve cellular morphology while allowing long-term storage at room temperature. However, FFPE processing can degrade DNA quality through cross-linking and fragmentation, potentially affecting the accuracy of gene mutation detection.

Use in retrospective and archival studies

FFPE tissues serve as a vital resource for retrospective studies, offering long-term preservation of biological material for molecular analyses³⁹. Researchers can leverage FFPE archives to investigate disease progression, discover and validate biomarkers, and correlate molecular findings with clinical outcomes and patient survival data⁴⁰.

This enables the identification of genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic changes that provide valuable insights into disease mechanisms and therapeutic responses. Additionally, retrospective analyses of FFPE samples have been instrumental in evaluating the role of immunotherapy biomarkers such as PD-L1 expressions⁴¹.

Innovations and emerging directions

Recent innovations in FFPE tissue analysis, such as improved RNA extraction, single-cell sequencing, and advanced proteomics, are overcoming challenges related to formalin-induced degradation, making FFPE tissues increasingly valuable for genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic studies²³.

Emerging technologies like spatial transcriptomics, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning (ML) are further enhancing FFPE’s utility, enabling detailed disease understanding and precision medicine applications^42,43.

These advancements are transforming FFPE tissues into a powerful resource for biomarker discovery, personalized treatment strategies, and large-scale retrospective studies, with efforts toward standardization ensuring reliable and reproducible results across clinical and research settings²⁵. New MS-based workflows allow quantitative profiling of large FFPE tissue cohorts directly from histopathology slides. These workflows leverage data-dependent and data-independent acquisition methods to quantify large parts of the proteome in under 100 minutes per run, making it feasible to analyze extensive clinical datasets efficiently⁴⁴.

Advancements in FFPE analysis techniques

Advancements in FFPE analysis techniques, such as improved extraction methods, high-throughput sequencing, and more sensitive detection systems, are enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of molecular profiling from archival tissue samples.

Intraoperative histology is essential for surgical decisions, but traditional frozen-section H&E staining lacks accuracy, and FFPE H&E staining is too slow.

A new stimulated model enables the rapid generation of stimulated Raman virtual histology (SRVH) that mimics H&E staining, producing results within 3 minutes⁴⁵.

Additionally, recent advances in FFPE-proteomics have improved protein extraction using high pressure, high temperature, and strong detergents. Enhanced LC-MS/MS sensitivity and the integration of ion mobility-based separation techniques like Trapped Ion Mobility Spectrometry (TIMS) and High Field Asymmetric Waveform Ion Mobility Spectrometry (FAIMS) have further refined analysis. AI-driven data analysis software now enables the identification of up to 5,000 proteins from standard FFPE tissue sections or even tiny tissue areas with fewer than 100 cells²⁶.

Laser capture microdissection of FFPE tissues

Laser capture microdissection (LCM) of FFPE sections enables precise isolation of homogeneous cell populations from heterogeneous tissues, allowing accurate analysis of DNA, RNA, and proteins. It is particularly effective for isolating tumor cells and, when combined with a tissue biorepository, enhances basic, translational, and clinical research using valuable human biospecimens⁴⁶.

Clinical proteomics has advanced by combining FFPE tissue analysis with LCM, enabling precise spatial separation of tissue regions for studying protein expression and post-translational modifications⁴⁷. For example, LCM has been employed to microdissect neurons from very small amounts of archived FFPE tissue blocks of the temporal cortex in Alzheimer’s disease patients. This approach enabled the identification of over 400 proteins in microdissected neurons, with approximately 78% being neuronal and 50% associated with Alzheimer’s disease⁴⁸.

Combining LCM with quantitative proteomics allows for spatially resolved analysis of FFPE tissue proteomes. This integration facilitates the quantification of intra-tumor heterogeneity at the proteome level using a single tissue slide. This can enhance our understanding of tumor microenvironments⁴⁷.

While formalin-induced protein crosslinking poses challenges, optimized sample preparation protocols have made proteomics feasible even for decades-old FFPE samples, supporting research in cancer and other biomedical fields.

Automated sectioning and staining technologies

Automated sectioning and staining technologies for FFPE tissues offer precise and cost-effective alternatives to manual macrodissection and LCM. They are particularly useful for obtaining specific areas of interest (AOIs) from small tissue samples⁴⁹.

This system improves the accuracy of molecular techniques, including gene mutation and next-generation sequencing analyses. It also maintains RNA recovery comparable to manual methods, enabling reliable downstream applications.

Single-cell and single-nucleus analysis in FFPE samples

Automated snRandom-seq addresses the challenges like RNA degradation and crosslinking by utilizing random primers for reverse transcription, enabling high-sensitivity, full-length single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) from FFPE samples¹⁵.

This approach successfully identifies thousands of genes per nucleus, detects cell types, and reveals clinically relevant subpopulations, such as proliferative nuclei in liver cancer, demonstrating its potential for biological research and precision medicine applications.

Digital pathology integration

Digital pathology (DP), driven by advancements in whole slide imaging (WSI), is transforming the field of anatomic pathology by enabling the digitization of glass slides for enhanced viewing and analysis.

This technology, coupled with machine learning and big data, has significantly advanced clinical, educational, and research applications, allowing for improved diagnostic accuracy and collaboration.

Successful integration of digital pathology systems requires a coordinated effort across various stakeholders and departments, with customizable frameworks tailored to each organization’s needs⁵⁰.

Converting FFPE samples to digital pathology images

FFPE tissue sections are converted into digital pathology images using high-resolution scanners, enabling detailed analysis and remote collaboration among pathologists⁵¹.

This digitization supports the precise extraction of DNA, RNA, or proteins from FFPE sections, integrating seamlessly with molecular workflows like qPCR and next-generation sequencing. Digital pathology enhances data accessibility and facilitates advanced molecular analyses for clinical and research applications^24,51.

Recent advancements in digital pathology are revolutionizing cancer diagnosis and treatment by integrating multimodal oncology data, including clinical, radiological, and molecular information.

Role of AI and machine learning in FFPE analysis

AI and machine learning enhance FFPE analysis by improving diagnostics, identifying novel biomarkers, and quantifying features undetectable to the human eye.

AI algorithms analyze H&E-stained FFPE slides to classify tumor heterogeneity, assess immune-stromal interactions, and predict gene expression from pathomic features, advancing precision oncology. AI-augmented systems also optimize DNA yield and tumor purity, reducing tissue waste and laboratory costs while increasing operational efficiency⁵².

Applications in microbiome and oncobiota studies

FFPE samples are increasingly used in microbiome and oncobiota studies to analyze microbial composition and interactions within archived tissues. These studies provide insights into the role of microorganisms in cancer development, progression, and the tumor microenvironment for preserved clinical samples.

Low biomass microbiota analysis in FFPE samples

FFPE tissues are widely used in cancer research for microbiota analysis, providing extensive resources for retrospective studies⁵³. However, their low microbial biomass can lead to contamination and biases, reducing the accuracy of NGS results and yielding fewer operational taxonomic units (OTUs) compared to fresh samples⁵⁴.

To mitigate these issues, various tools have been developed to standardize and assess the effects of FFPE processing on microbiota analysis.

Tumor microenvironment and oncobiota characterization

FFPE samples are essential for studying tumor microenvironment (TME) analysis and oncobiota, offering insights into cancer progression and immune response.

Meta-transcriptomic analyses demonstrate high concordance with fresh tissues, validating their use for exploring microbial and human gene expression within the TME. Multiomic approaches integrating protein and RNA profiling in FFPE samples enable comprehensive biomarker discovery and a deeper understanding of cellular interactions in the TME⁵⁵.

Role in personalized medicine

FFPE samples play an important role in personalized medicine by targeting the analysis of genetic mutations, biomarkers, and tumor profiles from archived tissue, which inform tailored treatment strategies.

They allow clinicians to make more precise therapeutic decisions based on individual genetic and molecular characteristics, improving patient outcomes.

FFPE tissue in biomarker discovery and validation

FFPE tissues are invaluable for proteomic analysis, maintaining proteome patterns like fresh samples and enabling biomarker discovery, such as myeloperoxidase in cancers like prostate cancer and diffuse large B cell lymphoma²³.

Combining immunohistochemistry with proteomics enhances antibody validation, ensuring reproducibility and specificity in biomarker detection samples in FFPE for reliable diagnostics⁵⁶.

Additionally, FFPE tissues are used in multiplexed mass spectrometry assays, providing precise quantification of biomarkers like HER2, which is vital for accurate patient stratification in clinical trials⁵⁷.

Tailored diagnostics and treatment strategies

FFPE tissues enable comprehensive genomic profiling through whole-exome sequencing, identifying clinically relevant variants to guide targeted therapies, particularly for rare cancers and unknown primary tumors⁵⁸.

Proteomic analyses using FFPE samples complement genomic data, offering insights into protein expression and modifications essential for predicting treatment responses and personalizing therapies⁵⁹.

High-throughput techniques like quantitative dot blot (QDB) enhance the precision and consistency of tissue biomarker measurement, improving diagnostic accuracy and tailored treatment strategies⁶⁰.

FAQs

How does paraffin sectioning contribute to tissue analysis?

Paraffin sectioning preserves tissue samples by embedding them in wax, allowing long-term storage and detailed examination. This method provides thin, uniform tissue sections that can be stained for visualization of cellular and tissue structures. It enables various analyses, including histological examination, immunohistochemistry, and molecular studies, making it essential for diagnostic and research purposes.

How is the quality of FFPE samples assessed?

The quality of FFPE samples is typically assessed by examining tissue morphology through H&E staining, which ensures proper preservation of cellular structures. DNA and RNA integrity are also evaluated using techniques like PCR or quantitative PCR, as degradation can occur during the embedding process. Additionally, the effectiveness of antigen retrieval methods is assessed for immunohistochemistry to confirm that proteins are still accessible for detection.

What are the common challenges in FFPE tissue sectioning?

Common challenges in FFPE tissue sectioning include uneven or inconsistent cutting, which can lead to artifacts and hinder accurate analysis. Tissue over-hardening during the fixation process can cause difficulties in obtaining thin, smooth sections, affecting sample quality. Additionally, the process may cause DNA and RNA degradation, making molecular analysis more challenging and requiring specialized techniques to recover genetic material.

References

1. 1. Donczo, B., Guttman, A. Biomedical analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples: The Holy Grail for molecular diagnostics. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 155, 125–134 (2018).

   2. Bauer, D.R., Leibold, T., Chafin, D.R., et al. Making a science out of preanalytics: An analytical method to determine optimal tissue fixation in real-time. PLOS ONE. 16, (2021).

   3. Zhanmu, O., Yang, X., Gong, H., Li, X. Paraffin-embedding for large volume bio-tissue. Scientific Reports. 10, 12639 (2020).

   4. Aikawa, E. Immunohistochemistry. ScienceDirect. In: Ducheyne, P., editor. Oxford: Elsevier; 3.316, 277–290 (2011).

   5. Yeung, Edward C., et al. "The use of the paraffin embedding method in the study of cultured explants I: background information." Plant tissue culture: new techniques and application in horticultural species of tropical region. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 2022.

   6. Wang, D., Roy, A., Silberschmidt, V.V. Production of high-quality extremely-thin histological sections by ultrasonically assisted cutting. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 276, 116403 (2020).

   7. Wang, J., Li, C., Chen, S.C. Sectioning soft materials with an oscillating blade. Precision Engineering. 56, 96–100 (2018).

   8. Wahab, S., Buttu, D., Smeeton, D., et al. Development of a hands-on and virtual simulation training module to teach microtomy. Cureus. (2022)

   9. Morrison, L.E., Lefever, M.R., Lewis, H.N., et al. Conventional histological and cytological staining with simultaneous immunohistochemistry enabled by invisible chromogens. Laboratory Investigation. 102(5) (2021).

   10. Kim, J., Choi, W., Yoo, D., et al. Solution-free and simplified H&E staining using a hydrogel-based stamping

   11. Fischer, A.H., Jacobson, K.A., Rose, J., et al. Hematoxylin and Eosin Staining of Tissue and Cell Sections. CSH Protocols. (2008).

   12. National Cancer Institute. H&E staining. (2011).

   13. Hwang, K., Vezeau, G., Olejnik, E., et al. A novel method to minimize HIER-induced alterations on H&E staining in an integrated mIF-H&E workflow. Cancer Research. 84(6_Supplement), 3767–7 (2024).

   14. Muijlwijk, T., Nijenhuis, D.N.L.M., Ganzevles, S.H., et al. Immune cell topography of head and neck cancer. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer. 12(7), e009550 (2024).

   15. Xu, Z., Zhang, T., Chen, H., et al. High-throughput single nucleus total RNA sequencing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues by snRandom-seq. Nature Communications. 14(1) (2023).

   16. Kresse, S.H., Namløs, H.M., Lorenz, S., et al. Evaluation of commercial DNA and RNA extraction methods for high-throughput sequencing of FFPE samples. PLOS ONE. 13(5), e0197456 (2018).

   17. Kashofer, K., Viertler, C., Pichler, M., et al. Quality control of RNA preservation and extraction from paraffin-embedded tissue: Implications for RT-PCR and microarray analysis. PLOS ONE. 8(7), e70714 (2013).

   18. Xie, R., Chung, J.Y., Ylaya, K., et al. Factors influencing the degradation of archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 59(4), 356–65 (2011).

   19. Trigodet, F., Lolans, K., Fogarty, E., et al. High molecular weight DNA extraction strategies for long-read sequencing of complex metagenomes. Molecular Ecology Resources. 22(5), 1786–1802 (2022).

   20. Petrotchenko, E.V., Serpa, J.J., Hardie, D.B., et al. Use of Proteinase K nonspecific digestion for selective and comprehensive identification of interpeptide cross-links: Application to prion proteins. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics: MCP. 11(7) (2012).

   21. Nouvel, A., Laget, J., Duranton, F., et al. Optimization of RNA extraction methods from human metabolic tissue samples of the COMET biobank. Scientific Reports. 11(1) (2021).

   22. Patel, P.G., Selvarajah, S., Guérard, K.P., et al. Reliability and performance of commercial RNA and DNA extraction kits for FFPE tissue cores. PLOS ONE. 12(6) (2017).

   23. Zhu, Y., Weiss, T., Zhang, Q., et al. High‐throughput proteomic analysis of FFPE tissue samples facilitates tumor stratification. Molecular Oncology. 13(11), 2305–28 (2019).

   24. Hedegaard, J., Thorsen, K., Lund, M. K., et al. Next-generation sequencing of RNA and DNA isolated from paired fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples of human cancer and normal tissue. PLoS ONE. 9(5), e98187 (2014).

   25. Mantsiou, A., Makridakis, M., Fasoulakis, K., et al. Proteomics analysis of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues in the investigation of prostate cancer. Journal of Proteome Research. 19(7), 2631–2642 (2019).

   26. Tüshaus, J., Eckert, S., Schliemann, M., et al. Towards routine proteome profiling of FFPE tissue: insights from a 1,220-case pan-cancer study. The EMBO Journal. 44(1), 304–329 (2024).

   27. Fowler, C.B., Waybright, T.J., Veenstra, T.D., et al. Pressure-Assisted Protein Extraction: A Novel Method for Recovering Proteins from Archival Tissue for Proteomic Analysis. Journal of Proteome Research. 11(4), 2602–2608 (2012).

   28. Barnabas, G.D., Goebeler, V., Tsui, J., et al. ASAP─Automated Sonication-Free Acid-Assisted Proteomes─from Cells and FFPE Tissues. Analytical Chemistry. 95(6), 3291–3299 (2023).

   29. Byron, A., Bernhardt, S., Ouine, B., et al. Integrative analysis of multi-platform reverse-phase protein array data for the pharmacodynamic assessment of response to targeted therapies. Scientific Reports. 10(1) (2020).

   30. Steiert, T. A., Parra, G., Gut, M., et al. A critical spotlight on the paradigms of FFPE-DNA sequencing. Nucleic Acids Research. 51(14), 7143–62 (2023).

   31. Boonyaratanakornkit, J., Schoenbrunner, E., & Shahbazian, M. Method of Preparing Quality Control Material for FFPE.

   32. Schmeller, J., Wessolly, M., Mairinger, E., et al. Setting out the frame conditions for feasible use of FFPE-derived RNA. Pathology Research and Practice. 215(2), 381–386 (2019).

   33. Mathieson, W., Thomas, G.A. Why Formalin-fixed, Paraffin-embedded Biospecimens Must Be Used in Genomic Medicine: An Evidence-based Review and Conclusion. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry. 68(8), 543–552 (2020).

   34. Olson, N.D., Morrow, J.B. DNA extract characterization process for microbial detection methods development and validation. BMC Research Notes. 5(1) (2012).

   35. Dupont, M. E., Christiansen, S. N., Jacobsen, S. B., et al. DNA quality evaluation of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded heart tissue for DNA methylation array analysis. Scientific Reports. 13(1), 2004 (2023).

   36. Lin, Y., Dong, Z. H., Ye, T. Y., et al. Optimization of FFPE preparation and identification of gene attributes associated with RNA degradation. NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics. 6(1), lqae008 (2024).

   37. Dupont, M. E., Jacobsen, S. B., Christiansen, S. N. N., et al. Fresh and frozen cardiac tissue are comparable in DNA methylation array β-values, but formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue may overestimate DNA methylation levels. Scientific Reports. 13(1), 16381 (2023).

   38. Gao, X. H., Li, J., Gong, H. F., et al. Comparison of fresh frozen tissue with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue for mutation analysis using a multi-gene panel in patients with colorectal cancer. Frontiers in Oncology. 10, (2020).

   39. Gracia Villacampa, E., Larsson, L., Mirzazadeh, R., et al. Genome-wide spatial expression profiling in formalin-fixed tissues. Cell Genomics. 1(3), 100065 (2021).

   40. Arima, K., Lau, M.C., Zhao, M., et al. Metabolic profiling of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues discriminates normal colon from colorectal cancer. Molecular Cancer Research. 18(6), 883–890 (2020).

   41. Pabla, S., Seager, R.J., Van Roey, E., et al. Integration of tumor inflammation, cell proliferation, and traditional biomarkers improves prediction of immunotherapy resistance and response. Biomarker Research. 9(1) (2021).

   42. Cao, J., Li, C., Cui, Z., et al. Spatial Transcriptomics: A Powerful Tool in Disease Understanding and Drug Discovery. Theranostics. 14 (7), 2946–68 (2024).

   43. Bhinder, B., Gilvary, C., Madhukar, N. S., et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Research and Precision Medicine. Cancer Discovery. 11(4), 900–15 (2021).

   44. Coscia, F., Doll, S., Bech, J.M., et al. A streamlined mass spectrometry-based proteomics workflow for large-scale FFPE tissue analysis. The Journal of Pathology. 251(1), 100–12 (2020).

   45. Liu, Z., Chen, L., Cheng, H., et al. Virtual formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded staining of fresh brain tissue via stimulated Raman CycleGAN model. Science Advances. 10(13), (2024).

   46. Pujari, G.P., Mangalaparthi, K.K., Madden, B.J., et al. A high-throughput workflow for FFPE tissue proteomics. Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry. 34(7), 1225–9 (2023).

   47. Buczak, K., Kirkpatrick, J.M., Truckenmueller, F., et al. Spatially resolved analysis of FFPE tissue proteomes by quantitative mass spectrometry. Nature Protocols. 15(9), 2956–79 (2020).

   48. Drummond, E.S., Nayak, S., Ueberheide, B., & Wisniewski, T. Proteomic analysis of neurons microdissected from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded Alzheimer’s disease brain tissue. Scientific Reports. 5(1), (2015).

   49. Qi, P., Bai, Q., Yao, Q., et al. Performance of Automated Dissection on Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Sections for the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. 19, (2020).

   50. Hanna, M.G., Ardon, O., Reuter, V.E., et al. Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice. Modern Pathology. 35, 152–164 (2022).

   51. Hanna, M.G., Ardon, O. Digital pathology systems enabling quality patient care. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer. 62, 685–697 (2023).

   52. Rigamonti, A., Viatore, M., Polidori, R., et al. Integration of AI-powered digital pathology and imaging mass cytometry to identify relevant features of the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Research. 83, 5783–3 (2023).

   53. Sun, Z., Huang, S., Zhu, P., et al. Species-resolved sequencing of low-biomass or degraded microbiomes using 2bRAD-M. Genome Biology. 23, (2022).

   54. Villette, R., Autaa, G., S., H., et al. Refinement of 16S rRNA gene analysis for low biomass biospecimens. Scientific Reports. 11 (2021).

   55. Uytingco, C., Chew, J., Anaparthy, N., et al. Multiomic characterization of the tumor microenvironment in FFPE tissue by simultaneous protein and gene expression profiling. Cancer Research. 82 (12_Supplement), 3814–4 (2022).

   56. Schuster, C., Hlubek, F., Malinowsky, K., et al. Combining immunohistochemistry and proteomics for improved antibody validation in complex FFPE tissues. Cancer Research. 71 (8_Supplement), 4875–5 (2011).

   57. Isabelle, M., Schirm, M., Pottiez, G., et al. Patient stratification using clinical proteomics – validated multiplexed MRM assays to quantify HER2 and other biomarkers in clinical FFPE tissues. Regular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts. 8 (Suppl_3), A35.1–A35 (2020).

   58. Malhotra, R., Javle, V., Tanwar, N., et al. An absolute approach to using whole exome DNA and RNA workflow for cancer biomarker testing. Frontiers in Oncology. 13, (2023).

   59. Izbicka, E., Streeper, R., Yeh, I-T. Virtual proteomics of pathology specimens: Mass spectrometric detection of multiple proteins in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Clinical Cancer Research. 13, A9–9 (2014).

   60. Tian, G., Tang, F., Yang, C., et al. Quantitative dot blot analysis (QDB), a versatile high throughput immunoblot method. Oncotarget. 8, (2017).