Pathology · 2011
Validation of a minimal panel of antibodies for the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kao Steven Chuan-Hao, Griggs Kim, Lee Kenneth, Armstrong Nicola, Clarke Stephen, Vardy Janette, van Zandwijk Nico, Burn Juliet, McCaughan Brian C, Henderson Douglas W, Klebe Sonja
Аннотация
AIMS: We previously established the use of a minimal panel of antibodies as sufficient to diagnose most epithelial malignant mesothelioma (MPM). We aimed to validate this approach and investigate the utility of a D2-40 antibody.
METHODS: A series of 80 MPM patients selected for surgery and 21 consecutive patients with pleural metastatic carcinoma were included. A minimal panel of antibodies, consisting of calretinin, BG8 and CD15, and D2-40 was investigated.
RESULTS: There were 61 epithelial and 19 biphasic MPM as well as 12 metastatic lung, six breast (5 ductal adenocarcinomas, 1 mixed ductal/lobular adenocarcinoma), two serous papillary ovarian carcinomas and one moderately differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of positive calretinin labelling to confirm the diagnosis of MPM was 97.5%, while the 'diagnostic sensitivities' of lack of labelling for BG8 and CD15 were 91.3% and 97.5%, respectively. The use of calretinin, BG8 and CD15 resulted in correct classification in 97.5% of all MPMs. All MPM cases investigated showed at least focal positive D2-40 labelling.
CONCLUSIONS: We have validated the usefulness of a minimal panel of antibodies with calretinin, BG8 and CD15 as the initial step to the diagnosis of MPM. D2-40 emerged as a helpful diagnostic tool for cases where our initial approach failed to conclusively diagnose MPM.
METHODS: A series of 80 MPM patients selected for surgery and 21 consecutive patients with pleural metastatic carcinoma were included. A minimal panel of antibodies, consisting of calretinin, BG8 and CD15, and D2-40 was investigated.
RESULTS: There were 61 epithelial and 19 biphasic MPM as well as 12 metastatic lung, six breast (5 ductal adenocarcinomas, 1 mixed ductal/lobular adenocarcinoma), two serous papillary ovarian carcinomas and one moderately differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of positive calretinin labelling to confirm the diagnosis of MPM was 97.5%, while the 'diagnostic sensitivities' of lack of labelling for BG8 and CD15 were 91.3% and 97.5%, respectively. The use of calretinin, BG8 and CD15 resulted in correct classification in 97.5% of all MPMs. All MPM cases investigated showed at least focal positive D2-40 labelling.
CONCLUSIONS: We have validated the usefulness of a minimal panel of antibodies with calretinin, BG8 and CD15 as the initial step to the diagnosis of MPM. D2-40 emerged as a helpful diagnostic tool for cases where our initial approach failed to conclusively diagnose MPM.