AIMS: To investigate whether MUC1 mucin, a high molecular weight transmembrane glycoprotein, also known as epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), differs in its expression and degree of glycosylation between anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and classic Hodgkin's disease (HD), and whether MUC1 immunostaining can be used to differentiate between CD30 positive large cell lymphomas. METHODS/ RESULTS: Using five different monoclonal antibodies (E29/anti-EMA, DF3, 139H2, VU-4H5, and SM3) that distinguish between various MUC1 glycoforms, high MUC1 expression (50-95% of tumour cells positive) was found in 13 of 17 anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive systemic nodal ALCLs, and in one of 20 cases of classic HD. Scattered or focal staining (< 25% of tumour cells) was seen in two additional ALK positive systemic ALCLs, two additional classic HD cases, and in three of 20 cases of ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL. Primary cutaneous ALCL showed no staining with the anti-MUC1 antibodies. Antibodies detecting hypoglycosylated MUC1 were found to be absent in all lymphomas (SM3) or present in only six of 15 ALK positive ALCLs (VU-4H5). CONCLUSIONS: MUC1 is preferentially expressed by a subtype of systemic nodal ALCL, characterised by ALK expression, but is found in only a few cases of classic HD and ALK negative ALCL. Therefore, although MUC1 could be used in a panel of markers for CD30 positive lymphomas, it is probably not a valuable tool to differentiate between ALK negative CD30 positive large cell lymphomas. Finally, the degree of MUC1 glycosylation in lymphomas is relatively high, compared with the aberrant hypoglycosylation found in adenocarcinomas.
AIMS: To investigate whether MUC1mucin, a high molecular weight transmembrane glycoprotein, also known as epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), differs in its expression and degree of glycosylation between anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and classic Hodgkin's disease (HD), and whether MUC1 immunostaining can be used to differentiate between CD30 positive large cell lymphomas. METHODS/ RESULTS: Using five different monoclonal antibodies (E29/anti-EMA, DF3, 139H2, VU-4H5, and SM3) that distinguish between various MUC1 glycoforms, high MUC1 expression (50-95% of tumour cells positive) was found in 13 of 17 anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive systemic nodal ALCLs, and in one of 20 cases of classic HD. Scattered or focal staining (< 25% of tumour cells) was seen in two additional ALK positive systemic ALCLs, two additional classic HD cases, and in three of 20 cases of ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL. Primary cutaneous ALCL showed no staining with the anti-MUC1 antibodies. Antibodies detecting hypoglycosylated MUC1 were found to be absent in all lymphomas (SM3) or present in only six of 15 ALK positive ALCLs (VU-4H5). CONCLUSIONS:MUC1 is preferentially expressed by a subtype of systemic nodal ALCL, characterised by ALK expression, but is found in only a few cases of classic HD and ALK negative ALCL. Therefore, although MUC1 could be used in a panel of markers for CD30 positive lymphomas, it is probably not a valuable tool to differentiate between ALK negative CD30 positive large cell lymphomas. Finally, the degree of MUC1 glycosylation in lymphomas is relatively high, compared with the aberrant hypoglycosylation found in adenocarcinomas.
Authors: S Pileri; M Bocchia; C D Baroni; M Martelli; B Falini; E Sabattini; F Gherlinzoni; S Amadori; S Poggi; P Mazza Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: D F Dukers; R L ten Berge; J J Oudejans; K Pulford; D Hayes; J F Miseré; G J Ossenkoppele; L H Jaspars; R Willemze; C J Meijer Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: A K Chan; D C Lockhart; W von Bernstorff; R A Spanjaard; H G Joo; T J Eberlein; P S Goedegebuure Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1999-08-27 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: P C de Bruin; R C Beljaards; P van Heerde; P Van Der Valk; L A Noorduyn; J H Van Krieken; J C Kluin-Nelemans; R Willemze; C J Meijer Journal: Histopathology Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: S W Morris; M N Kirstein; M B Valentine; K G Dittmer; D N Shapiro; D L Saltman; A T Look Journal: Science Date: 1994-03-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: L Lamant; F Meggetto; T al Saati; L Brugières; B B de Paillerets; N Dastugue; A Bernheim; H Rubie; M J Terrier-Lacombe; A Robert; F Rigal; D Schlaifer; M Shiuta; S Mori; G Delsol Journal: Blood Date: 1996-01-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: M Shiota; S Nakamura; R Ichinohasama; M Abe; T Akagi; M Takeshita; N Mori; J Fujimoto; J Miyauchi; A Mikata; K Nanba; T Takami; H Yamabe; Y Takano; T Izumo; T Nagatani; N Mohri; K Nasu; H Satoh; H Katano; J Fujimoto; T Yamamoto; S Mori Journal: Blood Date: 1995-09-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: N L Harris; E S Jaffe; H Stein; P M Banks; J K Chan; M L Cleary; G Delsol; C De Wolf-Peeters; B Falini; K C Gatter Journal: Blood Date: 1994-09-01 Impact factor: 22.113