Another interesting study entitled "Immunohistochemical staining for keratin and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma" by Holden, Janet MD, Churg, Andrew MD - American Journal of Surgical Pathology: April 1984 - - No. 4 Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - The use of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and the commercial antisera, we evaluated the usefulness of immunohistochemical staining for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and keratin in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma of the 18 lung adenocarcinomas. Review stained for CEA, usually strong and only eight of the 22 mesotheliomas stained for CEA and staining are generally weak staining for keratin was observed in 10 of 22 mesotheliomas and 12 of 18 adenocarcinomas. there were no differences in staining intensity between the groups. we conclude that a strong diffuse staining for CEA favors a diagnosis, for CEA is against the diagnosis of cancer, but these are relative and not absolute. we found that staining for keratin was not used to distinguish these cancers. "
Another interesting study entitled "Immunohistochemical staining for keratin and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma" by Holden, Janet MD, Churg, Andrew MD - American Journal of Surgical Pathology: April 1984 - - No. 4 Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - The use of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and the commercial antisera, we evaluated the usefulness of immunohistochemical staining for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and keratin in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma of the 18 lung adenocarcinomas. Review stained for CEA, usually strong and only eight of the 22 mesotheliomas stained for CEA and staining are generally weak staining for keratin was observed in 10 of 22 mesotheliomas and 12 of 18 adenocarcinomas. there were no differences in staining intensity between the groups. we conclude that a strong diffuse staining for CEA favors a diagnosis, for CEA is against the diagnosis of cancer, but these are relative and not absolute. we found that staining for keratin was not used to distinguish these cancers. "
an interesting study titled "HBME-1, MPC-31, WT1 and calretinin: assessment of recently described markers for mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma," according to Oates, Edwards -
. Histopathology - Volume 36, Number 4, pages 341-347, April 2000 Here's an excerpt: "The methods and results of the paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed blocks from six reactive pleuras, 42 adenocarcinomas and 40 mesotheliomas were used parts. Stained for Leu-M1, HBME-1, calretinin, WT1 and MOC-31 Leu-M1 was positive or equivocal in 34% of mesotheliomas and 78% of adenocarcinomas;. pleuras reactive were all negative HBME-1 was positive or equivocal. mesotheliomas in 76% and 73% adenocarcinoma, five reactive pleuras were positive Calretinin was positive or equivocal in 92% of mesotheliomas and 73% of adenocarcinomas; .. two reactive pleura were equivocal and four were positive WT1 was positive or equivocal in 72% of mesotheliomas (excluding autopsy cases) and in 20% of adenocarcinomas. all reactive pleuras were positive MPC-31 was positive or equivocal in 5% of mesotheliomas and 90% of adenocarcinomas, all reactive pleuras negative reactions.. with Leu-M1 was graded as equivocal in 25% of all adenocarcinomas 24 autopsy cases of mesothelioma were negative for WT1 and in many operative specimens only the periphery was stained Conclusions -. nor calretinin nor HBME-1 sufficiently discriminatory to be useful, even as members of the panel of antibodies. WT1 shows some promise, but can not be used on autopsy material. utility MOC-31 was confirmed by the superior Leu-M1 ."
We all owe debt of gratitude to these fine researchers. If you find any of these statements interesting, please read the study in its entirety.
0 comments:
Post a Comment