M T Friedman1, P Gentile, A Tarectecan, A Fuchs. 1. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY 11040, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether malignant mesotheliomas can be differentiated from adenocarcinomas and benign reactive mesothelial cells in pleural and peritoneal fluids using immunohistochemical analysis in conjunction with DNA ploidy analysis. DESIGN: Sixteen cases of malignant mesothelioma, including epithelial, sarcomatous, and biphasic types, were collected. DNA analysis using flow cytometry and/or image analysis was performed on paraffin-embedded tissue from 15 of the mesothelioma cases, as well as on cytospin cell preparations from samples of pleural and peritoneal fluids from cases with either cytologically proven adenocarcinoma (seven cases) or benign reactive mesothelial cells (seven cases). Immunohistochemical studies were done in 15 mesotheliomas, 5 adenocarcinomas, and 4 benign reactive mesothelial cell effusions. RESULTS: All malignant mesotheliomas tested (100%) stained positively for prekeratin, whereas stains for carcinoembryonic antigen, B72.3, Leu-M1, and Ber-EP4 were negative. Stains vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, and CA125 were positive in 75%, 75%, and 25% of cases tested, respectively. Benign reactive mesothelial cell cases stained similarly. Adenocarcinomas were more likely to react positively with B72.3, Ber-EP4, and carcinoembryonic antigen, and negatively with vimentin. DNA analysis showed that all benign cases were diploid, while all adenocarcinomas were nondiploid. Fifty-three percent of the malignant mesotheliomas were nondiploid. Sensitivity for detection of nondiploidy was greater for image analysis than for flow cytometry (100% vs 75%). CONCLUSIONS: B72.3, Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen, and vimentin are useful immunohistochemical markers in differentiating malignant mesotheliomas from adenocarcinomas, whereas immunohistochemistry does not reliably distinguish malignant from benign hyperplastic mesothelial cells. The addition of DNA ploidy studies is useful for differentiating the latter two groups.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether malignant mesotheliomas can be differentiated from adenocarcinomas and benign reactive mesothelial cells in pleural and peritoneal fluids using immunohistochemical analysis in conjunction with DNA ploidy analysis. DESIGN: Sixteen cases of malignant mesothelioma, including epithelial, sarcomatous, and biphasic types, were collected. DNA analysis using flow cytometry and/or image analysis was performed on paraffin-embedded tissue from 15 of the mesothelioma cases, as well as on cytospin cell preparations from samples of pleural and peritoneal fluids from cases with either cytologically proven adenocarcinoma (seven cases) or benign reactive mesothelial cells (seven cases). Immunohistochemical studies were done in 15 mesotheliomas, 5 adenocarcinomas, and 4 benign reactive mesothelial cell effusions. RESULTS: All malignant mesotheliomas tested (100%) stained positively for prekeratin, whereas stains for carcinoembryonic antigen, B72.3, Leu-M1, and Ber-EP4 were negative. Stains vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, and CA125 were positive in 75%, 75%, and 25% of cases tested, respectively. Benign reactive mesothelial cell cases stained similarly. Adenocarcinomas were more likely to react positively with B72.3, Ber-EP4, and carcinoembryonic antigen, and negatively with vimentin. DNA analysis showed that all benign cases were diploid, while all adenocarcinomas were nondiploid. Fifty-three percent of the malignant mesotheliomas were nondiploid. Sensitivity for detection of nondiploidy was greater for image analysis than for flow cytometry (100% vs 75%). CONCLUSIONS: B72.3, Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen, and vimentin are useful immunohistochemical markers in differentiating malignant mesotheliomas from adenocarcinomas, whereas immunohistochemistry does not reliably distinguish malignant from benign hyperplastic mesothelial cells. The addition of DNA ploidy studies is useful for differentiating the latter two groups.
Authors: F Algaba; G Mikuz; L Boccon-Gibod; I Trias; Y Arce; R Montironi; L Egevad; M Scarpelli; A Lopez-Beltran Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Jon Arne Søreide; Kjetil Søreide; Hartwig Körner; Håvard Søiland; Ole Jacob Greve; Einar Gudlaugsson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.282