subject: What Is The Difference Between Mesothelioma Cells And Pleuritic Cells [print this page] One interesting study is called, Characterization of the IGF System and Analysis of the Possible Molecular Mechanisms Leading to IGF-II Overexpression in a Mesothelioma" by D. Hodzic, L. Delacroix, Ph. Willemsen, K. Bensbaho, J. Collette, R. Broux, P. Lefbvre, J. J. Legros, M. Grooteclaes, R. Winkler - Horm Metab Res 1997; 29(11): 549-555. Here is an excerpt: The expression of members of the IGF system in a mesothelioma from a patient suffering from hypoglycemia, in term placenta and HT29 colon adenocarcinoma cells were compared. Very high levels of IGF-II mRNA and protein were detected in the mesothelioma. Moreover, half of the IGF-II protein took the high-molecular-weight form. We also analyzed the parental imprinting status and the promoter usage of the IGF-II gene. Our results showed loss of imprinting (LOI) in the mesothelioma while the imprinting was maintained in HT29 cells, expressing moderate levels of the transcript. Promoter P4 was active in the three tissues we analyzed, whereas IGF-II mRNA transcription from promoter P3 was only detected in the mesothelioma and the placenta, expressing comparably high levels of the transcript. IGF-II gene structure was identical in the analyzed tissues and cells. The type-I receptor mRNA expression was very low in the tumor. IGFBP-2, -4 and -5 mRNAs were detected in the mesothelioma, while IGFBP-2, -3 and -5 transcripts were detected in the placenta. IGFBP-1 and -6 transcripts were not detected.
Another study is called, Distinction of mesothelioma from carcinoma in pleural effusions. An immunocytochemical study on routinely processed cytoblock preparations. By Kuhlmann L, Berghuser KH, Schffer R. - Pathol Res Pract. 1991 May;187(4):467-71. Division of Cytopathology, Justus Liebig University, Medical School, Giessen, FRG. Here is an excerpt: Abstract - The study was designed to find out whether the commercially available antibodies BMA 130 c, BMA 120, V 9, KL 1, B 72.3 TAG, HEA 125 and Ber-EP 4 would be of help in distinguishing carcinomas from a mesothelial process (mesothelioma/pleuritis) in pleural effusion specimens routinely processed by the cytoblock method. All of the 20 carcinomas included in the study but also 19 of the 20 mesotheliomas expressed cytokeratin (KL 1), whereas vimentin expression was found in 7 of the 20 carcinomas and 19 of the 20 mesotheliomas. 19 of the 20 carcinomas reacted with the epithelial markers B 72.3 and HEA 125, and 18 of them with Ber-EP 4. In contrast, only a few of the 20 mesotheliomas showed a weak reaction to these markers (1 with HEA 125, 2 with B 72.3, and 3 with Ber-EP 4). BMA-130 c was detected in 10/20 carcinomas but in none of the mesotheliomas. BMA-120 was observed in the effusions from 17/20 mesotheliomas and in cover cells which had undergone reactive changes, but also in 2 cases of ovarian carcinoma. The results show that reaction to the "epithelial markers" B 72.3, HEA 125 and Ber-EP 4 is strongly indicative of carcinoma and not of mesothelioma, whereas a positive reaction with the antibody BMA-120 in the absence of reaction to the epithelial markers makes a mesothelial process very likely. However, immunocytochemical distinction cannot be made as yet between mesothelioma cells and pleuritic cells. If simultaneous positivity for BMA-120 and an "epithelial marker" in a pleural effusion is observed the primary tumor could be an ovarian carcinoma.
Another study is called, A Novel Biotinylated Probe Specific for Hyaluronate: Its Diagnostic Value in Diffuse Malignant Mesothelioma - February 1992 - Volume 16 - Issue 2 A Novel Biotinylated Probe Specific for Hyaluronate: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. Here is an excerpt: Abstract - Diffuse malignant mesotheliomas are known to secrete a large amount of hyaluronate, whereas adenocarcinomas produce predominantly neutral mucins. In the present study, we assessed the diagnostic usefulness of a new, highly specific and sensitive hyaluronate binding probe to discriminate between mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas. We studied 33 mesotheliomas and 37 adenocarcinomas in order to establish specific diagnostic criteria for using the hyaluronate binding probe. Of the adenocarcinomas, only three showed significant positive staining for hyaluronate (8%). By contrast, all the mesotheliomas exhibited positive staining for hyaluronate. Furthermore, the staining reaction was classed as moderate or greater in 26 mesotheliomas (79%), thus suggesting the utility of this probe in the differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma versus adenocarcinoma. We conclude that strong cytoplasmic or membranous staining for hyaluronate is highly predictive of malignant mesothelioma. The hyaluronate binding probe should therefore be considered an important adjunct to be used in combination with electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry in the histologic diagnosis of diffuse malignant mesothelioma.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers. If you found any of these excerpts interesting, please read the studies in their entirety.
by: Mont Wrobleski
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
