A comparative immunohistochemical study of peritoneal and ovarian serous tumors, and mesotheliomas

Khoury, Nabiha; Raju, Usha; Crissman, John D.; Zarbo, Richard J.; Greenawald, Kenneth A.

doi:10.1016/0046-8177(90)90050-f

Cited by 60 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reported percentage of positivity for adenocarcinomas of the lung has ranged from 35 to 100%, 9,41,53 and for mesotheliomas in general from 0 to 48%. 7,9,41 The immunostaining results obtained in serous carcinomas and peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas that have been reported by different groups of investigators 2,27,28,50,[54][55][56] are summarized in Table 7. In the present investigation, 73% of the serous carcinomas and none of the mesotheliomas reacted with the B72.3 antibody.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…56,57 CD15 expression has been demonstrated in 30-80% of serous carcinomas 1,2,27,28,50,55,56 (Table 8). Although some series have also reported positivity in a minority of mesotheliomas, 3,13,41,58 in the present investigation, as well as in previous studies by this author 2,9,26 and others, 56,57,59 none of the mesotheliomas exhibited CD15 expression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The histologic distinction between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas diffusely involving the peritoneum may be difficult, but it can be facilitated by the use of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy. D2-40 and podoplanin are two recently recognized lymphatic endothelial markers that can be expressed in normal mesothelial cells and mesotheliomas. The purpose of this study is to compare the value of these new mesothelial markers with those that are commonly used for discriminating between mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas, and also to determine the current role of electron microscopy in distinguishing between these malignancies. A total of 40 peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and 45 serous carcinomas of the ovary (15 primary, 30 metastatic to the peritoneum) were investigated for the expression of the following markers: D2-40, podoplanin, calretinin, keratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, B72.3 (TAG-72), BG-8 (Lewis Y ), CA19-9, and leu-M1 (CD15). All 40 (100%) of the mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, 93% for D2-40, 93% for podoplanin, 93% for keratin 5/6, 73% for thrombomodulin, 13% for Ber-EP4, 5% for MOC-31, 3% for BG-8, and none for B72.3, CA19-9, or leu-M1. All 45 (100%) serous carcinomas were positive for Ber-EP4, 98% for MOC-31, 73% for B72.3, 73% for BG-8, 67% for CA19-9, 58% for leu-M1, 31% for keratin 5/6, 31% for calretinin, 13% for D2-40, 13% for podoplanin, and 4% for thrombomodulin. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that Ber-EP4 and MOC-31 are the best negative mesothelioma markers for differentiating between epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. The best discriminators among the positive markers for mesotheliomas are D2-40, podoplanin, and calretinin. From a practical point of view, Ber-EP4 and MOC-31, in combination with calretinin, and/or D2-40 or podoplanin allow the differential diagnosis to be established between mesothelioma and serous carcinoma in nearly all instances. As a clear distinction could be made between these two malignancies in all of the cases in which electron microscopy was performed, this technique can be very useful in establishing the correct diagnosis when the immunohistochemical results are equivocal or further support of a diagnosis of either mesothelioma or serous carcinoma is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1,45,46 Among these, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, TAG-72 (B72.3), CD15 (leu-M1), and CA19-9 are the ones that, based on their sensitivity and specificity, have been suggested as being the most useful in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. 5,8,10 In serous carcinomas, the percentage of positivity has ranged from 90 to 100% for MOC-31 (Table 5), 5,7,8,10 87 to 100% for Ber-EP4 (Table 6), [5][6][7][8][9][10] 65 to 87% for TAG-72 (Table 7), 2,3,5,8,9 30 to 80% for CD15 (Table 8), [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and 60 to 80% for CA19-9 (Table 9). 5,[8][9][10] The percentage of positivity reported for these markers in peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas has been much lower, ranging 0-15% for MOC-31, 5,7,8,10 0-13% for Ber-EP4, 5-10 and 0-15% for CD15 2,4,6 (Tables 5, 6 and 8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 A number of comparative studies have been published in which the authors have attempted to determine the best panel of immunohistochemical markers that can assist in discriminating between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The recommended panels, however, have continually been subject to change as a result of the identification of new markers that can be used in the differential diagnosis of these tumors, as well as the publication of new information on the value of the individual markers. In a previous study by this author that was published in 2006 investigating the expression of a large number of positive mesothelioma markers (calretinin, podoplanin, keratin 5/6, and thrombomodulin) and positive carcinoma markers (MOC-31, Ber-EP4, BG-8 (Lewis y ), TAG-72 (B72.3), CD15 (leu-M1), and CA19-9), it was concluded that thrombomodulin, calretinin, and podoplanin were the best positive mesothelioma markers, and MOC-31 and Ber-EP4 were the best positive carcinoma markers for discriminating between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of PAX8, PAX2, claudin-4, and h-caldesmon immunostaining in distinguishing peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas from serous carcinomas

Ordóñez

2013

Modern Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinguishing between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and papillary serous carcinomas involving the peritoneum can be difficult on routine histological preparations, but this differential diagnosis can be facilitated by the use of immunohistochemistry. Recent investigations have indicated that PAX8, PAX2, claudin-4, and h-caldesmon are immunohistochemical markers that can assist in distinguishing between these two malignancies; however, much of the information published on the value of these markers is either insufficient or contradictory. The purpose of this study is to resolve some of the existing controversies and to fully determine the practical value of these markers for assisting in the differential diagnosis between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. In order to do so, a total of 40 peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and 45 serous carcinomas (15 primary, 30 metastatic to the peritoneum) were investigated. PAX8 and PAX2 nuclear positivity was demonstrated in 42 (93%) and 25 (56%) of the serous carcinomas, respectively, whereas none of the mesotheliomas expressed either marker. Forty-four (98%) of the serous carcinomas exhibited claudin-4 reactivity along the cell membrane, whereas none of the mesotheliomas were positive for this marker. All of the serous carcinomas and mesotheliomas were negative for h-caldesmon. Based on these results, it is concluded that PAX8 and claudin-4 have a higher sensitivity and specificity for assisting in discriminating between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas when compared with all of the other positive carcinoma markers that are, at present, recommended to be included in the immunohistochemical panels used in this differential diagnosis. Even though it is highly specific, PAX2 has little practical value in the diagnosis of peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas as its sensitivity is low. The h-caldesmon is not useful.

show abstract

“…In 10 cases of serous adenocarcinoma of the ovaries, Khoury et al, after finding that only three reacted with LeuM1 and B72.3 and 40% stained for CEA, concluded that immunonegative results must be interpreted with much caution, especially in serous tumors. 31 Sheibani et al 47 analyzed > 500 diffuse malignant mesotheliomas of epithelial type that were well characterized clinically and morphologically with various monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies reactive against oncofetal antigens, intermediate filaments, lectins and mucoid material. They found that LeuM1, CEA and Ber-EP4 were the most useful reactors for distinguishing between mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing Subpopulations of Neoplastic Cells in Serous Effusions

Queiroz

Barral‐Netto²,

Bacchi³

2001

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparative immunohistochemical study of peritoneal and ovarian serous tumors, and mesotheliomas

Cited by 60 publications

References 23 publications

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study

Value of PAX8, PAX2, claudin-4, and h-caldesmon immunostaining in distinguishing peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas from serous carcinomas

Characterizing Subpopulations of Neoplastic Cells in Serous Effusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About