一组细胞角蛋白抗体在胸腹腔积液中的表达及其鉴别诊断价值

目的:探讨一组细胞角蛋白抗体在胸腹腔积液中的表达情况及其临床应用价值。方法:选取72例胸腹腔积液标本,其中腺癌30例,鳞癌22例,反应增生性间皮细胞22例,应用细胞免疫化学SP法检测细胞角蛋白CK(AE1/AE3)、细胞角蛋白5/6(CK5/6)、细胞角蛋白18(CK18)的表达。结果:三种抗体在反应增生性间皮细胞、腺癌细胞、鳞癌细胞中阳性率分别是CK(AE1/AK3):10.0%,73.3%,68.2%;CK5/6:60.0%,6.7%,77.3%;CK18:0,80.0%,4.5%。组合CK(AE1/AE3)(-)、CK5/6(+)、CK18(-)检测间皮细胞的敏感性为93.3%,特异性为80.2%;CK5/6(-)、CK18(+)检测腺癌细胞的敏感性为84.7%,特异性为93.6%;CK(AE1/AE3)(+)、CK5/6(+)、CK18(一)检测鳞癌细胞的敏感性为86.4%,特异性为92.8%。结论:多项细胞角蛋白联检提高了诊断反应增生性间皮细胞、腺癌细胞、鳞癌细胞的敏感性和特异性,可辅助细胞形态学对于良恶性胸腹腔积液的鉴别诊断。     

TCT免疫细胞化学在胸腹水转移性腺癌诊断中的应用

目的:探讨液基细胞制片(TCT)免疫细胞化学在胸腹水转移性腺癌诊断中的应用价值。方法:应用一组单克隆抗体(mAb),采用TCT免疫细胞化学染色法检测117例胸腹水细胞标本,其中腺癌102例、反应性间皮细胞增生15例,观察细胞抗原表达。结果:102例腺癌中MOC31、CEA、EMA、E-Cadherin、TTF-1和vim阳性表达率分别为100%、69%、100%、100%、30%和0.98%,des和calretinin全部呈阴性表达。在15例反应性增生间皮细胞中calretinin、vim、des、CEA和EMA的阳性表达率分别为100%、100%、60%、6%和6%,MOC31、E-Cadherin和TTF-1全部呈阴性表达。MOC31、CEA、EMA和E-Cadherin在腺癌细胞中表达特异性为100%、94%、94%和100%,敏感性100%、69%、100%和100%。des、calretinin和vim在反应性增生间皮细胞中表达特异性100%、100%和99.02%,敏感性为60%、100%和100%。结论:应用TCT免疫细胞化学方法,选择性的联合使用一组抗体(MOC31、E-Cadherin、EMA、CEA、calretinin、vim、des、TTF-1),有助于胸腹水转移性腺癌细胞与反应性间皮细胞的鉴别诊断。     

浆膜腔积液转移性肺腺癌细胞中TTF-1的表达

目的 探讨甲状腺转录因子-1(TTF-1)在浆膜腔积液肺腺癌细胞中的表达，为肺腺癌的诊断和鉴别诊断提供新的依据。方法 选用浆膜腔积液转移性腺癌共60例(胸水40例，腹水17例，心包积液3例)。经组织学或结合临床资料证实的肺腺癌36例，泌尿生殖道腺癌14例，胃肠道腺癌8例，乳腺癌2例。每例均制备HE染色的涂片和离心沉渣经琼脂和石蜡包埋而成的细胞块，并用细胞块切片作TTF-1免疫细胞化学染色。结果 36例肺腺癌中有26例表达TTF-1，24例肺外腺癌中只有2例表达TTF-1，其敏感性为72．2％，特异性为91．7％。结论 TTF-1在浆膜腔积液肺腺癌具有较高的敏感性和特异性，在排除甲状腺癌的可能性后，TTF-1阳性表达很大程度上提示腺癌原发于肺。     

用免疫细胞化学鉴别胸腹水脱落细胞在肿瘤诊断中的价值

探讨免疫细胞化学鉴别胸腹水中上皮来源恶性肿瘤细胞和间皮源性细胞的价值。应用免疫细胞化学方法,检测80例患者胸腹水恶性肿瘤细胞和间皮细胞的细胞学形态及ESA、CEA、CK、D2-40、CR、Mesothlial、KI67、Vimentin等8种蛋白的表达情况。结果表明：胸腹水脱落细胞学检测和这8种蛋白联合检测可鉴别上皮来源恶性肿瘤细胞和间皮细胞。两种方法联合检测胸腹水,提高了脱落细胞学疑难病例诊断的准确率。     

胸腔恶性间皮瘤16例细胞学分析

为了进一步识别光镜下恶性间皮细胞的形态特征，我们复习了16例既有组织学诊断又有胸水涂片的恶性间皮细胞标本。探讨恶性间皮细胞的形态特征及与腺癌细胞、增生活跃的间皮细胞之间的差异。1一般资料材料取自1987年1月～1996年12月在我院经组织病理学和胸水脱落细胞学诊断的病例标本。其中恶性间皮细胞16例，腺癌细胞30例，增生活跃间皮细胞20例，全部的细胞学徐片标本经光镜重复观察分析。细胞学标本用HE染色。2结果2．l胸水中恶性间皮细胞的形态特征恶性间皮细胞形态呈圆形、卵圆形，轻度异形，胞浆丰富，着色浅，胞膜边界不清，核圆形、…     

LCT与ICC结合在胸腹水细胞学鉴别诊断中的应用

目的:探讨液基薄层细胞检测(LCT)技术与免疫细胞化学(ICC)技术在胸腹水细胞学鉴别诊断中的意义.方法:在87例胸腹水液基细胞涂片中应用免疫细胞化学技术检测癌胚抗原(CEA)、上皮细胞膜抗原(EMA)、间皮细胞(MC)抗体及波形蛋白(Vimentin)的表达并与HE染色比较.结果:腺癌中CEA、EMA、MC、Vimentin阳性表达率分别为88.2%、90.2%、5.9%和3.9%.增生性间皮细胞中CEA、EMA、MC、Vimentin阳性表达率分别为5.6%、2.8%、97.2%和88.9%.结论:免疫细胞化学技术可应用于胸腹水LCT涂片.选择一组特异的抗体(CEA、EMA、MC、Vimentin)并结合脱落细胞HE染色可以在转移性腺癌与增生性间皮细胞的鉴别诊断中起重要作用.     

Cytological differential diagnosis among adenocarcinoma,epithelial mesothelioma,and reactive mesothelial cells in serous effusions by immunocytochemistry

The objective of the study is to estimate the expression of some antibodies in the metastatic adenocarcinomas, malignant epithelial mesotheliomas, and reactive mesothelial cells in serous effusions and to choose effective panel to the differential diagnosis. Totally 113 effusion cytology samples (80 pleural fluid, 30 ascitic, and 3 pericardial fluid) from 60 cases of metastatic adenocarcinoma (ACA), 18 cases of malignant epithelial mesothelioma (MM), and 35 cases of reactive mesothelium (RM) were included in this study. The cytological diagnoses of these cases were confirmed by histopathology or clinical datas. Smears and cell blocks were prepared for each case. Immunocytochemical study was performed on the cell block sections. The sensitivity of E‐cadherin, CEA, MOC‐31, and Ber‐EP4 for adenocarcinoma was 86.7%, 80%, 70%, and 76.4%, respectively. The specificity was 98.1%, 96.2%, 92.5%, and 86.8%, respectively. The sensitivity of calretinin, HBME‐1, and thrombomodulin for RM/MM was 83%, 79.2%, and 47.2% respectively. The specificity was 88.3%, 21.7%, and 70%, respectively. The expression of E‐cadherin, CEA, MOC‐31, Ber‐EP4, calretinin, and thrombomodulin showed significant difference between ACA and RM/MM (P < 0.01). The reactivity of EMA and Des showed significant difference between RM and MM (P < 0.01). In our opinion, the antibody panel that consists of E‐cadherin, CEA, calretinin, and thrombomodulin should be the best for differential diagnosis between metastatic adenocarcinomas and RM/MM in serous effusions. EMA and Des should be used to differentiate malignant epithelial mesothelioma and reactive mesothelial cells. EMA positive and Des negative favor MM, while Des positive and EMA negative favor RM. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2011.     

Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing between carcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in body cavity fluids

The morphological evaluation of cytological specimens from body cavity fluids presents difficulties in the differential diagnosis between benign reactive mesothelial (RM) cells and adenocarcinoma (AC) or malignant mesothelioma (MM). The aim of our study was to investigate whether a panel of five different antibodies can offer reliable markers in the differential diagnosis of RM, AC, and MM in serous effusions. A total of 134 cytological specimens of serous effusions from 80 ACs, 50 RMs, and 4 MMs, previously stained with Papanicolaou stain, were selected retrospectively from our files and stained with anti-human mesothelial cell (HBME-1), calretinin, epithelial specific antigen (MOC-31), Ber-EP4, and BG8. Statistical significance was found with HBME-1, calretinin, MOC-31, anti-human epithelial antigen (Ber-EP4), and blood group related antigen (BG8) when comparing AC vs. any type of mesothelial proliferation (MM or RM). The sensitivity of HBME-1 and calretinin for mesothelial cells was 98 and 100%, respectively, and the specificity was 71 and 80%, respectively. Both antibodies stained reactive mesothelial as well as MM cells, with calretinin showing a stronger intensity of immunostaining. The sensitivity of the stain for AC was 86.25% for MOC-31, 77.5% for Ber-EP4, and 67.5% for BG8, and, when combined, the sensitivity was 100%. Our data suggest that immunocytochemical studies performed on Papanicolaou-stained cytological smears with HBME-1, calretinin, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, and BG8 proved to be useful in the differentiation between metastatic AC and mesothelial proliferation. Probably, calretinin is a more preferred marker for mesothelial cells as evidenced by a more intense staining reaction.     

Use of a panel of markers in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in fluid cytology.

To evaluate the use of a panel of markers to differentiate adenocarcinoma and the reactive/inflammatory process in fluid cytology, we stained 29 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell blocks of effusion fluid from patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma and 24 cell blocks from patients with benign effusion with mucicarmine and antibodies to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), B72.3, and calretinin. Positive staining with CEA, B72.3, and mucicarmine was seen in 22 (76%), 20 (69%), and 18 (62%) adenocarcinoma cases, respectively. All except 1 adenocarcinoma was negative for calretinin. No benign cases were positive for B72.3 and mucicarmine. In 1 benign case, scattered epithelial cells demonstrated weak positivity for CEA. The majority of combinations were 100% specific for adenocarcinoma. The highest sensitivity (86%) for adenocarcinomas was achieved with the staining combination of negative for calretinin and positive for any adenocarcinoma marker (CEA, B72.3, or mucicarmine). The use of a panel of markers that recognize adenocarcinoma and mesothelial cells is useful in the differential diagnosis between metastatic adenocarcinoma and the reactive/inflammatory process. The profile of positive staining with at least one of the adenocarcinoma markers and negative calretinin staining is highly specific and sensitive for identifying adenocarcinoma in fluid cytology.     

Use of mesothelin as a marker for mesothelial cells in cytologic specimens

Immunocytochemistry is often employed for the distinction between mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma. Mesothelin has recently been reported to be expressed in reactive mesothelial cells and epithelioid mesotheliomas. The objective of this study is to determine the utility of mesothelin as marker for mesothelial cells in cytologic preparations. Thirty cell blocks were retrieved from the archives and immunostained with monoclonal antibody directed against mesothelin and calretinin. Heat-induced epitope retrieval technique was employed, and the immunostaining was accomplished using an automated stainer. These tissue blocks were from 35 patients (17 females and 18 males) with a median age of 64 years. Nine were benign effusions, 11 mesotheliomas, and 18 metastatic adenocarcinomas. The presence of any immunoreactivity, irrespective of level of intensity or percentage of cells, was considered positive for mesothelin expression. Follow up included correlation with pathology materials obtained at surgery and review of medical records. Mesothelin staining was positive in 7/9 benign cases, 8/11 mesotheliomas, and 8/18 adenocarcinomas. The difference of mesothelin expression between mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma was statistically significant. For calretinin, all cases, except 2 malignant mesotheliomas and 3 adenocarcinomas, showed positive staining with calretinin. As a marker for mesothelial cells, the sensitivity and specificity of mesothelin were 73% and 55%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of calretinin were 95% and 86%, respectively. Therefore, mesothelin is not a sensitive or a specific marker for mesothelial cells in cytologic specimens when compared with calretinin.     

Cytopathologic differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells: A logistic regression analysis

Distinguishing malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferation in both cytologic and surgical pathologic specimens is often a diagnostic challenge. Conventional cytomorphologic assessment is an important step in the differential diagnosis of these entities.The pleural effusion cytologies from 40 cases of malignant mesothelioma, 40 cases of adenocarcinoma and 30 cases of reactive mesothelial proliferation diagnosed between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. Twenty-seven cytologic features which are regarded as useful in the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and benign mesothelial proliferation were assessed. These cytologic features were subjected to a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Three features were selected to distinguish malignant mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma: giant atypical mesothelial cell (P = 0.0001), nuclear pleomorphism (P = 0.0001) and acinar structures (P = 0.0001), the latter two being characteristics of adenocarcinoma. The variables selected to differentiate malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial cells were: cell ball formation (P = 0.0001), cell in cell engulfment (P = 0.0001) and monolayer cell groups (P = 0.0001), the latter being a feature of benign mesothelial proliferation. When these selected variables were subjected to a stepwise logistic regression analysis, the logistic model correctly predicted 90% of cases of benign mesothelial proliferation versus 97.5% of malignant mesothelioma and 92.5% of malignant mesothelioma versus 92.5% of adenocarcinoma.Conventional cytomorphologic assessment is the first step to establish an accurate diagnosis in pleural effusions. Several cytologic features have predictive value to separate malignant mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferation.     

Diagnostic utility of D2-40 and podoplanin in effusion cell blocks

The distinction between malignant mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma is a diagnostic challenge in cytologic specimens of effusion fluids. As for today, no single antibody has demonstrated absolute sensitivity or specificity for Mesothelioma. D2-40 and podoplanin have recently been recognized to stain mesothelial cells. Our aim for this study was to evaluate the utility of these two markers as indicators of mesothelial cells using cell blocks by comparison with two other established mesothelial markers. A total of 40 cell blocks of effusion fluids including cases of epithelioid mesotheliomas, metastatic carcinomas and benign cases with reactive mesothelial cells were selected. A panel of immunostains including D2-40, podoplanin, CK5, and calretinin was performed. D2-40 and podoplanin were positive in 100% of mesothelioma cases in comparison to metastatic adenocarcinoma cases where the positivity was 0%. It is concluded that D2-40 and podoplanin are very useful markers for mesotheliomas. Since these markers are extremely helpful in differentiating epithelioid mesothelioma from metastatic adenocarcinoma, they shall be a valuable addition to the battery of markers used to differentiate the two entities.