Why Is 3D Pathology Not There Yet?

Most would agree: 3D is better than 2D when it comes to diagnostics.

CT and MRI scans are far more informative than plain X-rays.

So, why is routine pathology still stuck in 2D?

Let’s Take a Trip Through Time:

19th Century: Modern histology using H&E stain (hematoxylin and eosin) emerged as a standard method for examining tissues.

1911: The first tissue clearing method was developed. Since then, countless innovative techniques have been published. Our favourite method, BABB (benzyl alcohol and benzyl benzoate), was introduced in 1981.

1980s: Modern immunohistochemistry (IHC) matured, enabling scientists to visualize specific proteins within cells and tissues.

1990s: The modern version of light-sheet microscopy appeared, drastically reducing scanning times and making high-resolution 3D imaging feasible.

Now: Image analysis software is advancing at an incredible pace, with AI algorithms improving every few months. Digitalization, automation, and computing power are no longer obstacles.

Sounds like 3D pathology should be in clinics by now… Right?

What’s the missing piece?

The answer lies in chemistry.

Seeing cells deep inside a thick tissue block requires some tricks.

Staining a 5 mm³ tissue block with multiple biomarkers is vastly more challenging than staining a 5 µm thin slide with a single stain at a time.

For years, the antibody penetration problem has prevented scientists and clinicians from seeing beyond the surface of thick tissue samples.

Most so-called “3D” images show a bright outer layer with a dark, unstained core, losing valuable insights hidden inside.

And biased data is worse than no data at all.

INSIHGT is currently the only scalable method that enables deep and even immunostaining of human tissue.

Try it and see it for yourself.