HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid

Background: The cytological diagnoses of serous effusions are usually made by routine cytomorphology with certainty. However, overlapping cases sometimes exist between reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells. We tried to evaluate the diagnostic utility of HBME-1 in distinguishing between react...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alireza Rahmani, Mohsen Zahedi Dehghani, Noushin Moghaddam Afshar, Hamidreza Heidarian, Reza Tahririan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2011-01-01
Series:Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2011;volume=54;issue=3;spage=460;epage=463;aulast=Rahmani
_version_ 1818196732962406400
author Alireza Rahmani
Mohsen Zahedi Dehghani
Noushin Moghaddam Afshar
Hamidreza Heidarian
Reza Tahririan
author_facet Alireza Rahmani
Mohsen Zahedi Dehghani
Noushin Moghaddam Afshar
Hamidreza Heidarian
Reza Tahririan
author_sort Alireza Rahmani
collection DOAJ
description Background: The cytological diagnoses of serous effusions are usually made by routine cytomorphology with certainty. However, overlapping cases sometimes exist between reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells. We tried to evaluate the diagnostic utility of HBME-1 in distinguishing between reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma in serous effusions. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two cytologic specimens processed by cell-block technique were retrieved from the archive and were assigned to two groups: Group I: 26 effusions containing reactive/benign mesothelial cells; Group II: 26 effusions containing carcinoma cells. Immunostaining with HBME-1 was performed using an Envision technique. The staining intensity of cells, according to proportion of immunoreactive cells, was scored as: 0 (negative), 1+ (<10%), 2+ (10-50%), and 3+ (≥50%); and the predominant staining pattern of positive cells were determined. Statistical analysis and tests of significance were performed using SPSS software. Results: The calculated mean values (in percentile) for stained cells in adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells were 25.57 and 67.88, respectively ( P = 0.001). Thin membranous, thick membranous, thick and thin membranous, cytoplasmic and combined patterns of staining in adenocarcinoma cells were respectively 4 cases (21.1%), 0 case, 0 case, 8 cases (42.1%), and 7 cases (36.8%), and in reactive mesothelial cells, these were 7 cases (26.9%), 1 case (3.8%), 18 cases (69.2%), 0 case, and 0 case, respectively. The intensity of staining in majority (88.5%) of reactive mesothelial cells was scored 3+, but the distribution varied in the other group. Conclusions: The staining pattern and intensity for HBME-1 is a useful panel for differentiation of adenocarcinoma and mesothelial cells.
first_indexed 2024-12-12T01:38:46Z
format Article
id doaj.art-388e21ddd4d14d93ad3f821c138d97e3
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0377-4929
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-12T01:38:46Z
publishDate 2011-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
spelling doaj.art-388e21ddd4d14d93ad3f821c138d97e32022-12-22T00:42:46ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsIndian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology0377-49292011-01-0154346046310.4103/0377-4929.85075HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluidAlireza RahmaniMohsen Zahedi DehghaniNoushin Moghaddam AfsharHamidreza HeidarianReza TahririanBackground: The cytological diagnoses of serous effusions are usually made by routine cytomorphology with certainty. However, overlapping cases sometimes exist between reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells. We tried to evaluate the diagnostic utility of HBME-1 in distinguishing between reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma in serous effusions. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two cytologic specimens processed by cell-block technique were retrieved from the archive and were assigned to two groups: Group I: 26 effusions containing reactive/benign mesothelial cells; Group II: 26 effusions containing carcinoma cells. Immunostaining with HBME-1 was performed using an Envision technique. The staining intensity of cells, according to proportion of immunoreactive cells, was scored as: 0 (negative), 1+ (<10%), 2+ (10-50%), and 3+ (≥50%); and the predominant staining pattern of positive cells were determined. Statistical analysis and tests of significance were performed using SPSS software. Results: The calculated mean values (in percentile) for stained cells in adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells were 25.57 and 67.88, respectively ( P = 0.001). Thin membranous, thick membranous, thick and thin membranous, cytoplasmic and combined patterns of staining in adenocarcinoma cells were respectively 4 cases (21.1%), 0 case, 0 case, 8 cases (42.1%), and 7 cases (36.8%), and in reactive mesothelial cells, these were 7 cases (26.9%), 1 case (3.8%), 18 cases (69.2%), 0 case, and 0 case, respectively. The intensity of staining in majority (88.5%) of reactive mesothelial cells was scored 3+, but the distribution varied in the other group. Conclusions: The staining pattern and intensity for HBME-1 is a useful panel for differentiation of adenocarcinoma and mesothelial cells.http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2011;volume=54;issue=3;spage=460;epage=463;aulast=RahmaniCytologyHBME-1 antibodymetastatic adenocarcinomareactive mesothelial cellserous effusion
spellingShingle Alireza Rahmani
Mohsen Zahedi Dehghani
Noushin Moghaddam Afshar
Hamidreza Heidarian
Reza Tahririan
HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Cytology
HBME-1 antibody
metastatic adenocarcinoma
reactive mesothelial cell
serous effusion
title HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
title_full HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
title_fullStr HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
title_full_unstemmed HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
title_short HBME-1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
title_sort hbme 1 immunostaining in reactive mesothelial versus metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluid
topic Cytology
HBME-1 antibody
metastatic adenocarcinoma
reactive mesothelial cell
serous effusion
url http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2011;volume=54;issue=3;spage=460;epage=463;aulast=Rahmani
work_keys_str_mv AT alirezarahmani hbme1immunostaininginreactivemesothelialversusmetastaticadenocarcinomacellsinserousfluid
AT mohsenzahedidehghani hbme1immunostaininginreactivemesothelialversusmetastaticadenocarcinomacellsinserousfluid
AT noushinmoghaddamafshar hbme1immunostaininginreactivemesothelialversusmetastaticadenocarcinomacellsinserousfluid
AT hamidrezaheidarian hbme1immunostaininginreactivemesothelialversusmetastaticadenocarcinomacellsinserousfluid
AT rezatahririan hbme1immunostaininginreactivemesothelialversusmetastaticadenocarcinomacellsinserousfluid