scholarly journals Cytological differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelia and epithelial malignant mesothelioma in effusion fluid

2009 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 327-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunimitsu KAWAHARA ◽  
Teruaki NAGANO ◽  
Shigekatsu OHYAMA ◽  
Koji ASAI ◽  
Yaeko NOBE ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurhan Sahin ◽  
Ayse Nur Akatli ◽  
Muhammet Reha Celik ◽  
Hakkı Ulutas ◽  
Emine Turkmen Samdanci ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Özlem Özmen ◽  
Ebru Tatci ◽  
Ş. Mustafa Demiröz ◽  
Zuhal Tazeler ◽  
Funda Demirağ

2009 ◽  
Vol 133 (8) ◽  
pp. 1317-1331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aliya N. Husain ◽  
Thomas V. Colby ◽  
Nelson G. Ordóñez ◽  
Thomas Krausz ◽  
Alain Borczuk ◽  
...  

Abstract Context.—Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective.—To develop practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Data Sources.—A pathology panel was convened at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting (October 2006). Pathologists with an interest in the field also contributed after the meeting. Conclusions.—There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the differential diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group recommends that markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.


2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 885-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noriko Kimura ◽  
Kimiko Dota ◽  
Yoshikazu Araya ◽  
Takuzo Ishidate ◽  
Masanori Ishizaka

Pathology ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darrel Whitaker ◽  
G.F. Sterrett ◽  
K.B. Shilkin

2005 ◽  
Vol 129 (11) ◽  
pp. 1421-1427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip T. Cagle ◽  
Andrew Churg

Abstract Context.—Although much of the pathology literature focuses on differential diagnosis of diffuse malignant mesothelioma from other types of cancer, the primary diagnostic challenge facing the pathologist is often whether a mesothelial proliferation on a pleural biopsy represents a malignancy or a benign reactive hyperplasia. Design.—Based on previous medical publications, extensive personal consultations, and experience on the United States–Canadian Mesothelioma Reference Panel and the International Mesothelioma Panel, salient information was determined about interpretation of benign versus malignant mesothelial proliferations on pleural biopsies. Results.—Differentiation of benign reactive mesothelial hyperplasia from diffuse malignant mesothelioma is often difficult. Benign reactive mesothelial hyperplasia may mimic many features ordinarily associated with malignancy, and diffuse malignant mesothelioma may be cytologically bland. Entrapment of benign reactive mesothelial cells within organizing pleuritis may mimic tissue invasion. Conclusions.—Various histologic clues favor a benign over a malignant mesothelial proliferation and vice versa. Invasion is the most reliable criterion for determining that a mesothelial proliferation is malignant. When there is any doubt that a pleural biopsy represents a malignancy, we recommend a diagnosis of atypical mesothelial proliferation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document