Immunohistochemistry Does Not Reliably Distinguish Malignant From Benign Hyperplastic Mesothelial Cells
One interesting study is called, “Hyperplastic mesothelial cells in
lymph nodes: Report of six cases of a benign process that can simulate
metastatic involvement by mesothelioma or carcinoma” by Pedram Argani,
MD, Juan Rosai, - Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 339-346 (April 1998). Here
is an excerpt: “Abstract - We report six cases of hyperplastic
mesothelial cells located in the sinuses of lymph nodes.
All patients
but one had a concurrent serosal fluid collection (two pericardial, two
pleural, one abdominal) at the time of the lymph node biopsy. All
effusions cleared with treatment of the underlying disorder, which
included lymphoproliferative processes, congestive heart failure, and
inflammatory diseases (Dressler syndrome, vasculitis, and
glomerulonephritis).
Four cases were associated with vascular prominence
of the involved nodal sinuses, a feature that may reflect the cause of
the underlying effusion or support the transient persistence of benign
mesothelial cells in lymph nodes. Two cases were characterized by
distention of the nodal sinuses by sheets of mitotically active
mesothelial cells. The differential diagnosis includes metastatic
carcinoma, keratin-positive dendritic cells native to lymph nodes, and
metastatic malignant mesothelioma.
Because the latter shares both
clinical and morphological features with cases of benign mesothelial
cells in lymph nodes, we believe that this distinction may not always be
possible in a given biopsy specimen and therefore that careful clinical
follow-up is required in such cases.”
Another interesting study is called, “Malignant mesothelioma :
Immunohistochemistry and DNA ploidy analysis as methods to differentiate
mesothelioma from benign reactive mesothelial cell proliferation and
adenocarcinoma in pleural and peritoneal effusions” - 2, Allée du Parc
de Brabois F-54514 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex France. Here is an
excerpt: “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.”
Another study is called, “Prognostic value of the serum tumour markers
Cyfra 21-1 and tissue polypeptide antigen in malignant Mesothelioma” -
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 25-32 (July 1999) - International Journal for
Lung Cancer. Here is an excerpt: “Abstract - In malignant mesothelioma,
survival is claimed to be related to age, duration of symptoms,
performance status, histological subtype, stage and platelet count.
However the exact prognostic value of these factors is still a matter of
debate. We studied the two cytokeratin markers, Cyfra 21-1 and Tissue
polypeptide antigen (TPA) for their significance in predicting survival
retrospectively in 52 patients. Cyfra 21-1 and TPA were elevated in 26
(50%) and 30 (58%) patients, respectively, and were highly correlated
(r=0.98). Univariate analysis of data from 51 patients, showed a
relation with survival for performance status (P=0.010), thoracic pain
(P=0.014), platelet count (P=0.027), Cyfra 21-1 (P=0.002) and TPA
(P=0.003). Multivariate analysis identified independent prognostic
significance for performance status, platelet count and Cyfra 21-1.
In
addition to performance status (80) the cytokeratin markers identified
patients with good prognosis in a log rank test. Values of Cyfra 21-1
and TPA are significantly correlated.
Home »
Mesothelioma
,
treatment
» Immunohistochemistry Does Not Reliably Distinguish Malignant From Benign Hyperplastic Mesothelial Cells
Immunohistochemistry Does Not Reliably Distinguish Malignant From Benign Hyperplastic Mesothelial Cells
Labels:
Mesothelioma,
treatment
Post a Comment