首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Pathology: Journal of the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland >The use of histological and immunohistochemical markers to distinguish pleural malignant mesothelioma and in situ mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive pleural fibrosis.
【24h】

The use of histological and immunohistochemical markers to distinguish pleural malignant mesothelioma and in situ mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive pleural fibrosis.

机译:使用组织学和免疫组化标记物将胸膜恶性间皮瘤和原位间皮瘤与反应性间皮增生和反应性胸膜纤维化区分开。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive fibrosis can be a diagnostic problem in small pleural biopsies, made more difficult by the recent recognition of mesothelioma-in-situ. Antibodies to epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), p53, and bcl-2 have all been advocated for differentiating reactive from neoplastic conditions, but reports are inconsistent. These antibodies have therefore been applied to 31 cases of malignant mesothelioma, 34 cases of reactive pleural disease (20 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and 14 reactive pleural fibrosis) and four small biopsies that were initially coded as suspicious, from patients who later developed frank mesothelioma. Thirty out of 31 (97 per cent) cases of mesothelioma showed positive nuclear staining for p53, with a higher incidence of positivity in epithelioid than in sarcomatoid elements and 30/31 (97 per cent) showed diffuse linear membrane staining for EMA, again more intense in the epithelioid elements. No mesothelioma was positive for bcl-2. In seven cases that contained both in situ and invasive mesothelioma, the in situ elements showed similar staining patterns to the invasive epithelioid elements. Thirteen out of 20 (65 per cent) cases of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia showed occasional nuclear positivity for p53 and 5/20 (25 per cent) cases showed focal weak membrane staining for EMA. Three out of 14 (21 per cent) cases of reactive pleural fibrosis showed positive nuclear staining for p53 and 6/14 (43 per cent) cases showed focal membrane staining with EMA. No reactive cases stained for bcl-2. All four suspicious cases showed diffuse linear staining with EMA and three showed focal staining for p53. It is concluded that strong diffuse linear staining for EMA is a good marker of malignancy when differentiating epithelioid malignant mesothelioma and mesothelioma-in-situ from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, although weak focal staining may occur in reactive conditions. Nuclear staining for p53 is also suggestive of epithelioid mesothelioma, but should be regarded as no more than suspicious. The antibodies used in this investigation are less helpful in differentiating sarcomatoid mesothelioma from reactive pleural fibrosis. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
机译:在小胸膜活检中,将恶性间皮瘤与反应性间皮增生和反应性纤维化相区分可能是诊断问题,近来就地皮间皮瘤的认识使这一问题变得更加困难。上皮膜抗原(EMA),p53和bcl-2的抗体均被提倡区分反应性疾病和肿瘤性疾病,但报道不一致。因此,这些抗体已应用于后来发展为坦率的间皮瘤的患者的31例恶性间皮瘤,34例反应性胸膜疾病(20例反应性间皮增生和14例反应性胸膜纤维化)和4例最初被编码为可疑的小活检。 31例间皮瘤病例中有30例(97%)显示p53阳性核染色,上皮样细胞阳性率高于肉瘤样元素,而30/31例(97%)显示EMA弥漫性线性膜染色,再次上皮样元素强烈。间皮瘤bcl-2无阳性。在同时包含原位和浸润性间皮瘤的7例病例中,原位元素的染色模式与浸润性上皮样元素相似。 20例反应性间皮增生病例中有13例(65%)偶有p53核阳性,而5/20例病例(25%)则显示EMA局灶性弱膜染色。 14例反应性胸膜纤维化病例中有3例(21%)对p53呈阳性核染色,而6/14例(43%)病例经EMA局灶膜染色。 bcl-2无反应性病例染色。所有四个可疑病例均表现出EMA弥漫性线性染色,三例显示p53局部染色。结论是,当将上皮样恶性间皮瘤和原位间皮瘤与反应性间皮增生区分开时,EMA的强弥散线性染色是恶性的良好标志,尽管在反应性条件下可能会出现较弱的局部染色。 p53的核染色也提示上皮样间皮瘤,但应视为可疑。本研究中使用的抗体在区分肉瘤样间皮瘤和反应性胸膜纤维化方面作用较小。版权所有1999 John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号