ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2002
Specificity of MOC-31 and HBME-1 immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma: a study on environmental malignant mesothelioma cases from Turkish villages.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) and differentiation from adenocarcinoma is often difficult. A number of clinical, radiologic, histologic and histochemical criteria have been used as diagnostic aids, but most cases cannot be readily classified on the basis of these characteristics. In recent years, a panel of immunohistochemical anti-bodies have been increasingly applied for the differential diagnosis of these two tumors. MOC-31 has been recently used as specific for adenocarcinomas while reacting with a minimal number of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations, and HBME-1 has also been presented as a mesothelial cell marker. In this study, we aimed to show the importance of these two antibodies among the environmental MM cases from Southeastern Turkey. Fifty five cases of MM and twenty adenocarcinomas were included in this study. Histochemical (PAS, PAS-D, mucicarmine) and immunohistochemical (Keratin, EMA,CEA, MOC-31, HBME-1) stains have been performed on each case. Keratin was positive in all cases. EMA stained 50 of 55 MM and all the adenocarcinoma cases. According to our results, dPAS, mucicarmen, CEA and MOC-31 positivity was statistically significant in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma whereas HBME-1 was demonstrable in most MM cases (52/55) and 11 adenocarcinoma cases. This study confirmed that in the diagnostic distinction between MM and adenocarcinoma, immuno-histochemistry is an important diagnostic tool, however, a panel of antibodies must be used rather than any single antibody. HBME-1 should be included in this panel; MOC-31 can be used where CEA is not available or to doublecheck the reactivity of this antibody.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12515999What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.