Mesothelioma in Domestic Animals: Cytological and Anatomopathological Aspects

Merlo, W. A.; Rosciani, A. S.

doi:10.5772/31830

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In four dogs, effusion cytology was negative for neoplasia but was later confirmed as neoplastic by histopathology. This finding supports previous reports in that differentiation between reactive mesothelial cells, CC and CM can be difficult on cytological fluid assessment alone 2 . Furthermore, although cytologic fluid evaluation is highly specific for a diagnosis of malignant neoplasia, it is important to note that a negative result does not rule out neoplasia 3 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…One dog in our study was diagnosed with both a thyroglossal duct carcinoma and CM based on cytokeratin positivity and double positivity for cytokeratin and vimentin, respectively. ICC and IHC are useful in differentiating between CC and CM, as mesothelial cells frequently expresses double positivity for cytokeratin and vimentin, as seen in one dog from our study 2,24–26 . Furthermore, the usage of an ICC or IHC panel including cytokeratin, vimentin, insulin‐like growth factor II mRNA, glucose transporter 1, desmin, and Wilm's tumour protein 1 could potentially help differentiate between reactive mesothelium, CC and CM 4,5 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…As both CC and CM often cause malignant effusions, differentiation between the two can be difficult based on cytologic fluid analysis alone. To further complicate the diagnosis, reactive mesothelial cells may be indistinguishable from malignant mesothelioma with cytologic assessment alone 2 . One prospective study found that the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing malignant neoplasia on cytologic evaluation of body fluids in dogs was 64% and 99%, respectively 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retrospective evaluation of toceranib phosphate (Palladia) in the treatment of canine carcinomatosis and mesothelioma

Hicks,

Leeper,

Curran

2024

Vet Comparative Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canine carcinomatosis (CC) and mesothelioma (CM) are rare but aggressive neoplasms that historically have been associated with poor prognoses. There is limited information regarding treatment for CC and CM. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of toceranib phosphate (Palladia) in dogs with CC and CM. Cases were solicited from the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) Oncology listserv and retrospectively reviewed. For eligibility, a cytologic and/or histopathologic diagnosis of CC or CM was required. A total of 23 cases were included (CC = 14, CM = 8, both = 1). Eighty‐two percent (19/23) of dogs presented with effusion. The best overall response rate (BORR) was 30.4% (13% complete response [CR], 17.3% partial response [PR]). Stable disease (SD) was appreciated in 14 dogs (60.8%) including the four dogs without effusion. The most common toceranib‐related adverse events were either Grade 1 and 2 diarrhea or hyporexia. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 171 days (range, 7–519 days) and overall median survival time (MST) was 301 days (range, 49–875 days) for all dogs. When evaluating dogs solely with effusion, the median PFS and overall MST were 171 days (range, 7–519 days) and 285 days (range, 49–875 days), respectively. This report demonstrates that toceranib is both well tolerated and a potential treatment for CC and CM. A randomised, controlled, prospective study would be needed to objectively assess the survival benefit of toceranib in the management of CC and CM, with and without effusion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%