Comparative Immunohistochemical Analysis of IMP3, GLUT1, EMA, CD146, and Desmin for Distinguishing Malignant Mesothelioma From Reactive Mesothelial Cells

Minato, Hiroshi; Kurose, Nozomu; Fukushima, Mana; Nojima, Takayuki; Usuda, Katsuo; Sagawa, Motoyasu; Sakuma, Tsutomu; Ooi, Akishi; Matsumoto, Isao; Oda, Makoto; Arano, Yoshihiko; Shimizu, Junzo

doi:10.1309/ajcp5knl7qtellyi

Cited by 60 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…86,87 Multiple studies suggest that both epithelioid and sarcomatoid MMs are more likely to be positive for IMP3 (diffuse dark brown cytoplasmic staining), whereas reactive mesothelial proliferations are more likely to be negative for IMP3. [88][89][90][91] A consistent difference in staining intensity of IMP3 between benign and malignant proliferations has not been reported. 88 Overall, positive staining for IMP3 and/or GLUT1 may be helpful to confirm the diagnosis of malignancy; however, negative staining for IMP3 and/or GLUT1 does not completely rule out MM.…”

Section: Pleural MM Versus Lung Carcinomamentioning

confidence: 97%

Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary and Pleural Neoplasms

Woo¹,

Reddy²,

Koo³

et al. 2017

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context.-A vast majority of neoplasms arising from lung or pleura are initially diagnosed based on the histologic evaluation of small transbronchial, endobronchial, or needle core biopsies. Although most diagnoses can be determined by morphology alone, immunohistochemistry can be a valuable diagnostic tool in the workup of problematic cases.Objective.-To provide a practical approach in the interpretation and immunohistochemical selection of lung/ pleura-based neoplasms obtained from small biopsy samples.Data Sources.-A literature review of previously published articles and the personal experience of the authors were used in this review article.Conclusion.-Immunohistochemistry is a useful diagnostic tool in the workup of small biopsies from the lung and pleura sampled by small biopsy techniques.

show abstract

Section: Pleural MM Versus Lung Carcinomamentioning

confidence: 97%

Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary and Pleural Neoplasms

Woo¹,

Reddy²,

Koo³

et al. 2017

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The differential diagnosis of MPM and the use of ICC and molecular markers in cytological samples are the same as in histological specimens. Several ICC markers, such as desmin, p53, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), glucose transporter protein 1 (GLUT-1), insulin-like growth factor 2 messenger RNA-binding protein 3 (IMP-3), and CD146, have been proposed to assist in uncertain cases (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). Nevertheless, none of these markers, alone or in combination, appeared to be useful with sufficient confidence in the routine diagnosis of MPM (6).…”

Section: Cytological Diagnosis Of Mpmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned above, several immunohistochemical markers are more likely to be positive in benign proliferations and others in malignant ones. These markers include desmin, p53, EMA, GLUT-1, IMP-3, and CD146 (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). However, there is insufficient evidence to rely upon in single cases (6).…”

Section: Reactive Mh Versus Epithelioid/mixed Mpmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pathological and molecular diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a literature review

Alì¹,

Bruno²,

Fontanini³

2018

J. Thorac. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

on the application of a panel including positive (mesothelial-related) and negative markers with greater than 80% sensitivity and specificity, which need to be selected based on morphology and clinical information.Moreover, in challenging cases, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for the p16 deletion and IHC to evaluate the loss of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) expression could be useful in distinguishing benign from malignant pleural proliferations.

show abstract

“…GLUT-1 has been investigated by many groups for MPM differential diagnosis, and it has continuously shown high specificity for MPM (90-100%), while its sensitivity values ranged from 21% to 85% (5)(6)(7)(8).…”

Section: Diagnostic Markers By Ihc or Fishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is one of the few markers of benignity; its sensitivity ranges from 48% to 84%, and its specificity in some studies reaches 97% (6,10). Nevertheless, desmin stain is typical of a benign reaction, and a proportion of MPM (as high as 50%) has been reported to be positive as well; therefore, its efficacy in clinical practice is minimal (4).…”

Section: Diagnostic Markers By Ihc or Fishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular markers and new diagnostic methods to differentiate malignant from benign mesothelial pleural proliferations: a literature review

Bruno¹,

Alì²,

Fontanini³

2018

J. Thorac. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor associated with asbestos exposure. Histopathological analysis of pleural tissues is the gold standard for diagnosis; however, it can be difficult to differentiate malignant from benign pleural lesions. The purpose of this review is to describe the most important biomarkers and new diagnostic tools suggested for this differential diagnosis. There are many studies concerning the separation between MPM and benign pleural proliferations from both pleural tissues or effusions; most of them are based on the evaluation of one or few biomarkers by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), whereas others focused on the identification of MPM signatures given by microRNA (miRNA) or gene expression profiles as well as on the combination of molecular data and classification algorithms. None of the reported biomarkers showed adequate diagnostic accuracy, except for p16 [evaluated by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH)] and BAP1 (evaluated by IHC), both biomarkers are recommended by the International Mesothelioma Interest Group guidelines for histological and cytological diagnosis. BAP1 and p16 showed a specificity of 100% in discerning malignant from benign lesions because they are exclusively unexpressed or deleted in MPM. However, their sensitivity, even when used together, is not completely sufficient, and absence of their alterations cannot confirm the benign nature of the lesion. Recently, the availability of new techniques and increasing knowledge regarding MPM genetics led to the definition of some molecular panels, including genes or miRNAs specifically deregulated in MPM, that are extremely valuable for differential diagnosis. Moreover, the development of classification algorithms is facilitating the application of molecular data for clinical practice. Data regarding new diagnostic tools and MPM signatures are absolutely promising; however, before their application in clinical practice, a prospective validation is necessary, as these approaches could surely improve the differential diagnosis between malignant and benign pleural lesions.

show abstract

Comparative Immunohistochemical Analysis of IMP3, GLUT1, EMA, CD146, and Desmin for Distinguishing Malignant Mesothelioma From Reactive Mesothelial Cells

Abstract: The combination of IMP3 and GLUT1 is most appropriate for distinguishing MM from RMC using FFPE sections.

Cited by 60 publications

References 24 publications

Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary and Pleural Neoplasms

Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary and Pleural Neoplasms

The pathological and molecular diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a literature review

Molecular markers and new diagnostic methods to differentiate malignant from benign mesothelial pleural proliferations: a literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About