Journal of Cytology
Home About us Ahead of print Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online:764
  Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 28-31

Use of panel of markers in serous effusion to distinguish reactive mesothelial cells from adenocarcinoma


1 Pathology Department, Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, Kelambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Pathology Department, Maulana Azad Medical College and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Devi Subbarayan
Pathology Department, D Block, Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, Kelambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 603 103
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JOC.JOC_13_18

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Although cytological examination helps in diagnosis of malignancy in serous effusion, at times it is difficult to differentiate atypical reactive mesothelial cells from adenocarcinoma (AC) cells. To resolve this problem, various ancillary methods have been used. Immunocytochemistry (ICC) is one such commonly used technique in which various panel of antibodies has been tried. Unfortunately, so far no unique marker is available to solve this issue. Hence, the present study evaluates the efficacy of four antibody panel comprising of MOC-31, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), calretinin (CAL), and mesothelin (MES) to solve this problem. Materials and Methods: Forty-two cases suspected of malignant effusion in pleural/peritoneal fluid and 42 cases of reactive effusion were included. Cytospin smears were prepared and stained with Giemsa stain for cytomorphological diagnosis. Cytospin smears and cell blocks were made forICC. ICC for MOC-31, EMA, CAL, and MES was performed. Results: Among the suspected malignant effusion cases, 30 cases were AC and 12 cases were suspicious for malignancy by cytomorphology. MOC31 demonstrated 100% sensitivity (Sn) and 95.24% specificity (Sp), and EMA had 88.1% Sn and 92.86% Sp for AC cases. CAL demonstrated 100% and 97.62%, and MES 97.62% and 88.1% Sn and Sp in reactive mesothelial cells, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, combination of MOC-31 and CAL as a limited panel will be helpful in giving an appropriate diagnosis in difficult cases and thereby, help in patient management. In addition, ICC on cytospin smears gave results similar to cell blocks, and if standardised cytospin is simple technique to perform, unlike cell blocks.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed188    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded52    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal