Dignostic Utility of HBME1 to Differentiate Between Reactive Mesothelial Cells and Adenocarcinoma Cells in Body Fluids
Keywords:
Adenocarcinoma, Reactive mesothelial cells, HBME1
Abstract
Background : Reactive mesothelial cells show overlapping features with malignant cells.To differentiate between the two Immunocytochemistry (ICC) can be used.HBME1 is the antigen present on mesothelial cells.We have tried to evaluate the efficacy of HBME1 to differentiate between reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma cells. Methods : Total 60 cases with clinical dilemma or suspicious on conventional cytology were selected .Cell block was prepared and staining with monoclonal antibody HBME1 was done.Staining pattern was classified as cytoplasmic ,membranous or combined. Result : Out of 42 ,28 cases showed negative staining ,8 cases showed cytoplasmic positivity and 4 cases showed combined positivity.All the benign cases showed membranous potivity. Conclusion:The staining pattern of HBME1 can be used to differentiate between reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma cells.References
1 Lozano MD, Panizo A, Toledo GR, Sola JJ, Pardo-Minda J. Immunocytochemistry in the differential diagnosis of serous effusions. A comparative evaluation of eight monoclonal antibodies in Papanicolaou stained smears. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:68-72.
2. Fetsch PA, Abati A. Immunocytochemistry in effusion cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:293-308.
3.Sayed DM, el-Attar MM, Hussein AA. Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:498-504.
4. Krausz T, Barker F. Metastatic disease and lymphomas. In: Gray W, McKee GT, editors. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2nd ed. London: Churchill- Livingstone; 2003. p. 135-200.
5 Murugan P, Siddaraju N, Habeebullah S, Basu D. Immunohistochemical distinction between mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions: A combination panel-based approach with a brief review of the literature. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52:175-81.
6. Henzi T, Blum WV, Pfefferli M, Kawecki TJ, Salicio V, Schwaller B. SV40-induced expression of calretinin protects mesothelial cells from asbestos cytotoxicity and may be a key factor contributing to mesothelioma pathogenesis. Am J Pathol 2009;174:2324-36.
7. Wu GP, Zhang SS, Fang CQ, Liu SL, Wang EH. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions. Cytopathology 2008;19:212-7.
8. Mocanu L, Cîmpean AM, Raica M. Value of antimesothelioma HBME-1 in the diagnosis of inflammatory and malignant pleural effusions. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2006;47:351-5.
9. Marchevsky AM, Wick MR. Evidence-based guidelines for the utilization of immunostains in diagnostic pathology: Pulmonary adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:140-4.
10. Ascoli V, Carnovale-Scalzo C, Taccogna S, Nardi F. Utility of HBME- 1 immunostaining in serous effusions. Cytopathology 1997;8:328-35.
11. Rehmani A, Dehgani MZ, Afshar NM, Heidarian H, Tahririan R. HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2011;54:460-3.
12. Szczepulska-Wójcik E, Langfort R, Roszkowski-Sliz K. A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis between malignant mesothelioma, non-small cell carcinoma involving the pleura, and benign reactive mesothelial cell proliferation. Pnumonol Alergol Pol 2007;75:57-69.
13. Politi E, Kandaraki C, Apostolopoulou C, Kyritsi T, Koutselini H. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing between carcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in body cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:151-5.
1 Lozano MD, Panizo A, Toledo GR, Sola JJ, Pardo-Minda J. Immunocytochemistry in the differential diagnosis of serous effusions. A comparative evaluation of eight monoclonal antibodies in Papanicolaou stained smears. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:68-72.
2. Fetsch PA, Abati A. Immunocytochemistry in effusion cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:293-308.
3.Sayed DM, el-Attar MM, Hussein AA. Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:498-504.
4. Krausz T, Barker F. Metastatic disease and lymphomas. In: Gray W, McKee GT, editors. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2nd ed. London: Churchill- Livingstone; 2003. p. 135-200.
5 Murugan P, Siddaraju N, Habeebullah S, Basu D. Immunohistochemical distinction between mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions: A combination panel-based approach with a brief review of the literature. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52:175-81.
6. Henzi T, Blum WV, Pfefferli M, Kawecki TJ, Salicio V, Schwaller B. SV40-induced expression of calretinin protects mesothelial cells from asbestos cytotoxicity and may be a key factor contributing to mesothelioma pathogenesis. Am J Pathol 2009;174:2324-36.
7. Wu GP, Zhang SS, Fang CQ, Liu SL, Wang EH. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions. Cytopathology 2008;19:212-7.
8. Mocanu L, Cîmpean AM, Raica M. Value of antimesothelioma HBME-1 in the diagnosis of inflammatory and malignant pleural effusions. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2006;47:351-5.
9. Marchevsky AM, Wick MR. Evidence-based guidelines for the utilization of immunostains in diagnostic pathology: Pulmonary adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:140-4.
10. Ascoli V, Carnovale-Scalzo C, Taccogna S, Nardi F. Utility of HBME- 1 immunostaining in serous effusions. Cytopathology 1997;8:328-35.
11. Rehmani A, Dehgani MZ, Afshar NM, Heidarian H, Tahririan R. HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2011;54:460-3.
12. Szczepulska-Wójcik E, Langfort R, Roszkowski-Sliz K. A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis between malignant mesothelioma, non-small cell carcinoma involving the pleura, and benign reactive mesothelial cell proliferation. Pnumonol Alergol Pol 2007;75:57-69.
13. Politi E, Kandaraki C, Apostolopoulou C, Kyritsi T, Koutselini H. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing between carcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in body cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:151-5.
2. Fetsch PA, Abati A. Immunocytochemistry in effusion cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:293-308.
3.Sayed DM, el-Attar MM, Hussein AA. Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:498-504.
4. Krausz T, Barker F. Metastatic disease and lymphomas. In: Gray W, McKee GT, editors. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2nd ed. London: Churchill- Livingstone; 2003. p. 135-200.
5 Murugan P, Siddaraju N, Habeebullah S, Basu D. Immunohistochemical distinction between mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions: A combination panel-based approach with a brief review of the literature. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52:175-81.
6. Henzi T, Blum WV, Pfefferli M, Kawecki TJ, Salicio V, Schwaller B. SV40-induced expression of calretinin protects mesothelial cells from asbestos cytotoxicity and may be a key factor contributing to mesothelioma pathogenesis. Am J Pathol 2009;174:2324-36.
7. Wu GP, Zhang SS, Fang CQ, Liu SL, Wang EH. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions. Cytopathology 2008;19:212-7.
8. Mocanu L, Cîmpean AM, Raica M. Value of antimesothelioma HBME-1 in the diagnosis of inflammatory and malignant pleural effusions. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2006;47:351-5.
9. Marchevsky AM, Wick MR. Evidence-based guidelines for the utilization of immunostains in diagnostic pathology: Pulmonary adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:140-4.
10. Ascoli V, Carnovale-Scalzo C, Taccogna S, Nardi F. Utility of HBME- 1 immunostaining in serous effusions. Cytopathology 1997;8:328-35.
11. Rehmani A, Dehgani MZ, Afshar NM, Heidarian H, Tahririan R. HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2011;54:460-3.
12. Szczepulska-Wójcik E, Langfort R, Roszkowski-Sliz K. A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis between malignant mesothelioma, non-small cell carcinoma involving the pleura, and benign reactive mesothelial cell proliferation. Pnumonol Alergol Pol 2007;75:57-69.
13. Politi E, Kandaraki C, Apostolopoulou C, Kyritsi T, Koutselini H. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing between carcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in body cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:151-5.
1 Lozano MD, Panizo A, Toledo GR, Sola JJ, Pardo-Minda J. Immunocytochemistry in the differential diagnosis of serous effusions. A comparative evaluation of eight monoclonal antibodies in Papanicolaou stained smears. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:68-72.
2. Fetsch PA, Abati A. Immunocytochemistry in effusion cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:293-308.
3.Sayed DM, el-Attar MM, Hussein AA. Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:498-504.
4. Krausz T, Barker F. Metastatic disease and lymphomas. In: Gray W, McKee GT, editors. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2nd ed. London: Churchill- Livingstone; 2003. p. 135-200.
5 Murugan P, Siddaraju N, Habeebullah S, Basu D. Immunohistochemical distinction between mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions: A combination panel-based approach with a brief review of the literature. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52:175-81.
6. Henzi T, Blum WV, Pfefferli M, Kawecki TJ, Salicio V, Schwaller B. SV40-induced expression of calretinin protects mesothelial cells from asbestos cytotoxicity and may be a key factor contributing to mesothelioma pathogenesis. Am J Pathol 2009;174:2324-36.
7. Wu GP, Zhang SS, Fang CQ, Liu SL, Wang EH. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions. Cytopathology 2008;19:212-7.
8. Mocanu L, Cîmpean AM, Raica M. Value of antimesothelioma HBME-1 in the diagnosis of inflammatory and malignant pleural effusions. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2006;47:351-5.
9. Marchevsky AM, Wick MR. Evidence-based guidelines for the utilization of immunostains in diagnostic pathology: Pulmonary adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:140-4.
10. Ascoli V, Carnovale-Scalzo C, Taccogna S, Nardi F. Utility of HBME- 1 immunostaining in serous effusions. Cytopathology 1997;8:328-35.
11. Rehmani A, Dehgani MZ, Afshar NM, Heidarian H, Tahririan R. HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2011;54:460-3.
12. Szczepulska-Wójcik E, Langfort R, Roszkowski-Sliz K. A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis between malignant mesothelioma, non-small cell carcinoma involving the pleura, and benign reactive mesothelial cell proliferation. Pnumonol Alergol Pol 2007;75:57-69.
13. Politi E, Kandaraki C, Apostolopoulou C, Kyritsi T, Koutselini H. Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing between carcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in body cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:151-5.
Published
2018-07-20
Issue
Section
Original Article
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
