Diagnostic Utility of GLUT-1 Expression in the Cytologic Evaluation of Serous Fluids

Afify, Alaa M; Zhou, Heidi; Howell, Lydia Pleotis; Paulino, Augusto F. G.

doi:10.1159/000326249

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The GLUT-1 positivity rate in RM has been reported to be 0% (present study and Afify et al 29 Immunohistochemical detection of GLUT-1 Y Kato et al However, Zimmerman et al and Burstein et al reported that GLUT-1-positive cells of RM showed equivocal-to-weak staining and were easily distinguishable from unequivocal positivity of other cell types, so that the specificity of GLUT-1 was not diminished. According to them, a number of 'falsepositive' cases occurred in patients with cirrhosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Immunohistochemical detection of GLUT-1 can discriminate between reactive mesothelium and malignant mesothelioma

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The separation of benign reactive mesothelium (RM) from malignant mesothelial proliferation can be a major challenge. A number of markers have been proposed, including epithelial membrane antigen, p53 protein, and P-glycoprotein. To date, however, no immunohistochemical marker that allows unequivocal discrimination of RM from malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been available. A family of glucose transporter isoforms (GLUT), of which GLUT-1 is a member, facilitate the entry of glucose into cells. GLUT-1 is largely undetectable by immunohistochemistry in normal epithelial tissues and benign tumors, but is expressed in a variety of malignancies. Thus, the expression of GLUT-1 appears to be a potential marker of malignant transformation. Recently, in fact, some studies have shown that GLUT-1 expression is useful for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of GLUT-1 expression for diagnostic differentiation between RM and MPM. Immunohistochemical staining for GLUT-1 was performed in 40 cases of RM, 48 cases of MPM, and 58 cases of lung carcinoma. Immunohistochemical GLUT-1 expression was seen in 40 of 40 (100%) MPMs, and in all cases the expression was demonstrated by linear plasma membrane staining, sometimes with cytoplasmic staining in addition. GLUT-1 expression was also observed in 56 out of 58 (96.5%) lung carcinomas. On the other hand, no RM cases were positive for GLUT-1. GLUT-1 is a sensitive and specific immunohistochemical marker enabling differential diagnosis of RM from MPM, whereas it cannot discriminate MPM from lung carcinoma. Modern Pathology (2007) 20, 215-220.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Immunohistochemical detection of GLUT-1 can discriminate between reactive mesothelium and malignant mesothelioma

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…GLUT-1 positivity in reactive mesothelial hyperplasia was reported to be 0% by Afi fy et al (39), 3% by Zimmermann et al (40), and 20% by Burstein et al (41). Kato et al (10) found GLUT-1 staining in none of the 40 RMH cases, and in all 48 MM cases in their study (10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Value of glut-1 and koc markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma

Üçer¹,

Dağlı²,

Kılıçarslan³

et al. 2013

TJPATH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Afify et al showed that GLUT-1 was present, with strong distinct linear membrane staining, in 72% of malignant effusions; none of the benign effusions in their study was similarly immunoreactive. 33 Another assessment by Kitazume et al demonstrated that reactive mesothelial cells typically lack E-cadherin whereas virtually all malignant mesotheliomas express that marker along with 85% of adenocarcinomas. 34 Davidson et al also showed that desmin was present in 84% of reactive mesothelial cells, as compared with 2% of carcinomas and 8% of mesotheliomas.…”

Section: False-positive Pleural Cytologymentioning

confidence: 99%

False‐positive interpretations in respiratory cytopathology: Exemplary cases and literature review

Policarpio‐Nicolas

Wick

2007

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulmonary cytology has progressed over the past decades because of advancement in imaging studies and increased confidence of pathologists in cytomorphologic diagnosis. It has an overall sensitivity and specificity ranging from *60 to 96%. However, even with the most conscientious laboratories, falsepositive diagnoses of malignancy do occur in respiratory specimens, potentially resulting in unnecessary treatment and morbidity. Selected respiratory cytopathology cases with false-positive diagnoses are presented here, along with a review of pertinent literature and a discussion of possible steps to minimize the problem being considered. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2008;36:13-19. ' 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Diagnostic Utility of GLUT-1 Expression in the Cytologic Evaluation of Serous Fluids

Cited by 19 publications

References 26 publications

Immunohistochemical detection of GLUT-1 can discriminate between reactive mesothelium and malignant mesothelioma

Immunohistochemical detection of GLUT-1 can discriminate between reactive mesothelium and malignant mesothelioma

Value of glut-1 and koc markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma

False‐positive interpretations in respiratory cytopathology: Exemplary cases and literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About