Immunocytochemical Staining of Serous Effusions With the Monoclonal Antibody Ber-Ep4

Cytospin preparations were made from 102 serous effusions for immunocytochemical staining using a panel of monoclonal antibodies including a new monoclonal antibody Ber-EP4. On cytological examination, 32 fluids were reported to contain tumour cells consistent with metastatic adenocarcinoma; 66 contained benign cells only and three were reported to contain cells suspicious of malignancy. One effusion contained tumour cells consistent with malignant mesothelioma. Positive staining of the tumour cells with Ber-EP4 was observed in the 32 effusions (100%) which contained adenocarcinoma cells. No staining of the mesothelial cells in these 32 specimens was observed. Carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen Ca2 and CD15 staining of tumour cells was noted in 53%, 50%, 50% and 9% of these cases, respectively. None of the mesothelial cells in the benign effusions stained with Ber-EP4. Nor did the malignant mesothelial cells in the only case of malignant mesothelioma. These findings suggest that Ber-EP4 is a valuable addition to antibodies available for the differential diagnosis of mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma cells in serous effusions.     

Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions

Objective:  The aim of this study was to evaluate the individual and combined diagnostic utility of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin 19 fragments (CK19) and HBME-1 in pleural effusions of patients with lung cancer.
Study design:  CEA, CK19 and HBME-1 were detected by immunocytochemistry in pleural effusions from patients with lung cancer (86 cases) and without lung cancer (40 cases).
Results:  CEA and CK19 expression were significantly higher in the carcinoma cell group and in three subgrouped as adenocarcinoma (AC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and small cell lung cancer than in the mesothelial cell group, whereas HBME-1 expression was lower in the former group ( P <  0.01). In the subgrouped tumours, CEA expression was higher in AC than in SCC ( P <  0.05), whereas HBME-1 expression was higher in SCC than in AC ( P <  0.01). Used alone, CK19 had the highest sensitivity (95.3%) and accuracy (93.7%), whereas CEA had the highest specificity (97.5%). When combinations of antibodies were evaluated together and membrane staining with HBME-1 taken as a negative outcome, CK19 and HBME-1 gave a high diagnostic performance: sensitivity of 100.0% and accuracy of 95.2% respectively.
Conclusion:  A panel of CEA, CK19 and HBME-1 monoclonal antibodies proved to be suitable for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions.     

Monoclonal antibodies in the cytodiagnosis of serous effusions

In order to assess the value of immunocytochemical staining as a method of discriminating between benign reactive mesothelial cells and malignant epithelial cells in serous effusions, we have studied the reactions of a panel of commercially available antibodies on cells harvested from 83 pleural and peritoneal fluids and compared the results with the clinical and cytological diagnoses. The antibodies used were raised against cytokeratin (PKK1), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA), pregnancy specific B1-glycoprotein (SP1) and leucocyte common antigen (LCA). Anti-CEA was positive in 16 of 39 effusions (41%) containing carcinoma cells. Pregnancy specific B1-glycoprotein (SP1) was positive in 33% of the same samples. Mesothelial cells did not stain with these antibodies. Thus anti-CEA and SP1 can be used to discriminate between benign mesothelial and malignant epithelial cells in effusions. Anti-PKK1 stained both benign reactive mesothelial cells and malignant epithelial cells and cannot be used to discriminate between these two cell types. Strong positive staining of malignant cells was noted with anti-EMA. However, as occasional weak staining of mesothelial cells was also noted, strong staining with this antibody may be regarded as suspicious but not conclusive of malignancy.     

Cytophotometric determination of DNA in mesotheliomas and reactive mesothelial cells

Cytophotometry was used to study the nuclear DNA content of cells in Feulgen-stained effusion specimens from 18 patients with mesothelioma and 14 patients with reactive mesothelial proliferations. The mean DNA content (MDNA) of mesothelioma cells was significantly higher than that of reactive mesothelial cells (P less than .001). Other parameters reflecting the DNA content also differed significantly between the two kinds of cells, including (1) the ratio of mean mesothelial DNA to mean lymphocyte DNA, (2) the percentage of mesothelial cells with DNA content exceeding three times the lymphocyte MDNA and (3) the coefficient of variation of the DNA content. Since these parameters were highly correlated, only one was accepted in a stepwise linear discriminant model for distinguishing reactive from mesotheliomatous effusions. The model correctly classified all of the reactive effusions studied and 89% of the mesotheliomatous effusions. These results indicate that DNA analysis, using the Feulgen stain and cytophotometry, yields criteria that may be useful in distinguishing benign reactive mesothelial cells from malignant mesothelioma in effusions when used in conjunction with other traditional parameters.     

A new epithelial membrane antigen (Calam 27) as a marker of carcinoma in serous effusions

A new monoclonal antibody (Calam 27) that reacts with a membrane antigen present on cells of epithelial origin, but not on cells of mesothelial origin, was investigated as a means of distinguishing between mesothelial cells and malignant cells in cytologic smears of serous effusions from patients with carcinoma. Immunofluorescence staining of cells in 151 effusions from 109 patients with different diseases showed a good correlation between the cytologic diagnosis on routine preparations and the staining with Calam 27. Calam 27 was also used to study the ploidy and cell cycle kinetics of carcinoma cells versus reactive mesothelial cells and normal cells by flow cytometry; these experiments confirmed that Calam 27 is not reactive with mesothelial cells. In conclusion, Calam 27 staining can help to confirm the cytodiagnoses in cases with carcinomatous effusions.     

Heparanase expression: a potential ancillary diagnostic tool for distinguishing between malignant cells and reactive mesothelium in body cavity effusions

OBJECTIVE: Heparanase, an endoglycosidase that cleaves heparan sulphate, is frequently expressed in carcinomas and was suggested to play a role in cell invasion and metastasis. We investigated whether heparanase expression may serve as a reliable marker to discriminate benign mesothelial cells from malignant cells shed into body cavities. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cytological smears of effusions from 51 hospitalized patients were immunostained for heparanase. Strong immunoreactivity was noted in 35 of 40 (88%) carcinoma samples and in all three malignant mesothelioma cases. Only rare (<3%) reactive mesothelial cells were noted showing a faint negligible staining. Specificity was 100%, sensitivity 88%, and positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 89% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that heparanase may be of value as a complementary component in a diagnostic panel of markers, contributing to its reliability and accuracy.     

Ultrastructure of pleural mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma in malignant effusions as compared with reactive mesothelial cells.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the ultrastructural features of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma cells in cytologic specimens from pleural effusions. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively studied 35 pleural effusions: 12 diffuse malignant pleural mesotheliomas (8 epithelial type, 4 biphasic type), 12 pulmonary adenocarcinomas and 11 cases of reactive mesothelial cells. RESULTS: In the cytoplasm, reactive and malignant mesothelial cells had more-abundant intermediate filaments (P < .05, P < .01) and fewer free ribosomes (P < .001, P < .001) than adenocarcinoma cells. Reactive mesothelial cells had fewer mitochondria than mesothelioma cells (P < .05). Mesothelioma cells had longer, thinner microvilli on the cell surfaces (P < .001); length/diameter ratios of microvilli were 19.1 +/- 7.0 (mesothelioma) vs. 9.1 +/- 2.2 (adenocarcinoma) and 9.2 +/- 2.4 (mesothelial cells). Giant intercellular junctions (desmosomes or desmosomelike structures > 1 micron in length) were found in eight cases of mesothelioma. Core filaments or rootlets in microvilli were present in two cases of adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Because cytologic specimens from pleural effusions were easy to obtain, we think ultrastructural cytology is useful in distinguishing mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma and benign effusions.     

Diagnostic utility of GLUT-1 expression in the cytologic evaluation of serous fluids

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which adenocarcinomas in body cavity fluids express GLUT-1 in comparison to currently available markers for adenocarcinomas. STUDY DESIGN: Archival paraffin-embedded cell blocks of serous fluids from 25 cases of benign effusions containing reactive mesothelial cells and 39 cases of malignant effusions with metastatic adenocarcinoma (11 ovarian, 11 pulmonary, 9 gastrointestinal and 8 breast) were retrieved from the surgical pathology files. All cases were stained with antibodies for GLUT-1, Ber-Ep4, B72.3 and CEA. Positive staining was defined as distinct linear membrane staining for GLUT-1 and Ber-EP4, cytoplasmic staining for CEA, and cytoplasmic or membrane staining for B72.3. Strong staining in at least 10% of the tumor cells was required in order to consider the case positive for the particular marker. RESULTS: GLUT-1 was expressed in 72% (28 of 39) of cases of malignant effusions: 100% (11 of 11) from the ovary, 91% (10 of 11) from the lung, 67% (6 of 9) from the gastrointestinal tract and 12% (1 of 8) from the breast. None (0 of 25) of the benign effusions expressed GLUT-1. Malignant effusions expressed CEA in 74% (29 of 39), Ber-Ep4 in 85% (33 of 39), and B72.3 in 62% (24 of 39). Benign effusions expressed CEA in 3 cases and B72.3 in 2 cases. CONCLUSION: GLUT-1 is a useful marker that can be applied to cytologic specimens. It can be used as a reliable component of an antibody panel to distinguish reactive mesothelial cells from metastatic adenocarcinoma in particular adenocarcinomas of body cavity effusions, in particular adenocarcinomas of ovarian and pulmonary origin.     

Malignant ascites of serous papillary ovarian adenocarcinoma. An immunocytochemical study of the tumor cells

In 17 malignant peritoneal effusions due to papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary, the reaction patterns of the tumor cells to monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against surface antigens were studied and compared with the reaction patterns of mesothelial cells in the same effusions. The following surface markers were used with the adhesive slide method: epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), human epithelium-specific cell surface antigen (HEA-125), human endothelial antigen (BMA-120), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA 3-13), an antibody against natural killer cells and cytotoxic cells (BMA-070), granulocyte antigen (Leu M1) and leukocyte antigen of class I (HLA-1). In all cases, from 30% to 95% of the tumor cells reacted with EMA and HEA-125. Tumor cells showed a positive staining with CEA 3-13 in only five cases. In all cases, from 75% to 95% of the tumor cells reacted positively with BMA-120. The reactivity of a few mesothelial cells with EMA and of all mesothelial cells with BMA-120 did not interfere with the identification of positive tumor cells since the reaction patterns were different. Interestingly, our study demonstrated that BMA-070, an MAb identifying natural killer cells and cytotoxic cells, is also a most useful tumor marker. The same was found to be true for Leu M1, an MAb originally thought to react only with granulocytes. The tumor cells showed a partial or total loss of the expression of HLA-1 reactivity. Since all cases were immunocytochemically positive for tumor cells while conventional cytology was positive in only 13 of the cases, the immunocytochemical analysis of malignant peritoneal effusions due to papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary seems able to improve the cytologic diagnosis of the fluids.     

Cytopathology of malignant mesothelioma. Reappraisal of the diagnostic value of collagen cores

The identification of malignant mesothelial cells in cytological smears prepared from serous effusions is still hampered by the lack of features specific for mesothelial differentiation. We examined the diagnostic value of collagen cores within clusters of tumour cells in cytological smears prepared from effusions from 43 patients with malignant mesothelioma and of 62 cases of metastatic adenocarcinoma. In Giemsa-stained smears collagen cores were detected in 51% of the cases of malignant mesothelioma and in none of the smears with metastatic adenocarcinoma. Using the Azan stain, collagen cores were detected in 64% of the malignant mesotheliomas and 4% of the adenocarcinomas. Immunoelectron microscopy demonstrated that the collagen cores are largely composed of collagen type III fibrils and some elastin embedded in a homogenous extracellular matrix. It can be concluded that the presence of collagen cores within clusters of tumour cells is highly suggestive of mesothelial differentiation and a common finding in malignant mesothelioma.     

Lower proliferation rate in metastatic effusion mesothelial cells than in benign effusions

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proliferation rates of mesothelial cells in metastatic and benign effusions. STUDY DESIGN: Immunohistochemistry was performed on formalin-fixed pellets from 16 malignant and 9 benign clinical effusions. Dual staining with antibodies against Ki-67 (MIB-1) and desmin was applied to all effusions to differentiate between benign mesothelial cells and malignant cells, and the proportions of desmin+/Ki-67+ and desmin+/Ki-67- cells were calculated. RESULTS: In 7 malignant effusions no proliferating mesothelial cells were found, whereas some rate of proliferation could always be demonstrated in mesothelial cells in the benign effusions. Further, the median proportions of proliferating cells, malignant 2% vs. benign 11%, differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this finding has not been previously described, and it may have implications for both cytologic diagnosis and the understanding of tumor biology and the interaction between tumor cells and mesothelial cells.     

The value of calretinin and cytokeratin 5/6 as markers for mesothelioma in cell block preparations of serous effusions

Objective: To determine the value of calretinin and cytokeratin (CK) 5/6 in discriminating mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma in serous effusion specimens. Methods: A total of 101 recent, histologically or clinically confirmed malignant effusions with immunostained cell block preparations were reviewed. The cases consisted of 34 mesotheliomas and 67 adenocarcinomas. This included 17 ascitic fluid and 84 pleural fluid samples. The adenocarcinomas included metastatic carcinomas from the breast (12), lung (19), stomach (3), colon (1), pancreas (2), ovary (6) endometrium (1) and 23 histologically confirmed metastases from unknown primary sites. The cases were assessed as negative or positive (>5% of cells stained). The staining pattern was recorded as cytoplasmic, cell membrane, nuclear or cytoplasmic and nuclear staining. Results: Calretinin staining was present in 97% (33/34) of the mesothelioma cases with a majority of them showing both cytoplasmic and nuclear staining (29/33). Only 3% (2/67) of adenocarcinomas were positive for calretinin, one being a lung adenocarcinoma and the other an adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site in an ascitic fluid. Cytokeratin 5/6 staining was also present in 33/34 (97%) of mesothelioma cases. Six (9%) adenocarcinomas were positive, including metastases from the lung (1), breast (1), ovary (2) and unknown primary site (2). Four of the six adenocarcinoma cases positive for CK5/6 were in ascitic fluids. No cases of mesothelioma were negative for both calretinin and CK5/6. Only one adenocarcinoma case, (which was from unknown primary site in an ascitic fluid sample), was positive for both markers. Conclusions: The results confirm that calretinin and CK 5/6 are useful markers for mesothelioma in effusion specimens. CK5/6 staining may be less useful for peritoneal fluid specimens where metastatic adenocarcinomas may be more likely to express the antigen. Further study of ascitic/peritoneal specimens is warranted. However, positive staining, particularly for both antigens, is highly indicative of a mesothelial origin for cells. The two markers make a useful addition to EMA and the panel of adenocarcinoma markers routinely applied to effusion specimens.     

Diagnostic interest of the monoclonal antibody CA1 in malignant pleural effusion

The Ca1 antibody was used in an immunohistochemical procedure on smears of cells from 40 patients with malignant pleural effusion. The control group consisted of 25 benign pleural effusions with a high percentage of reactive mesothelial cells. The Ca1 Mc Ab was positive in 19 (79%) of the 24 pleural effusions with positive malignant cytology. In all the benign cases the Ca1 Mc Ab was negative (100% specificity). The Ca1 Mc Ab detected malignant mesothelial cells in two cases and was negative with reactive mesothelial cells and other nucleated cells present in the pleural effusion. We conclude that the Ca1 antibody offers a useful diagnostic method for malignant pleural effusions, when the morphological interpretation is doubtful.     

Diagnostic utility of BCA-225 in detecting adenocarcinoma in serous effusions

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic value of the BCA-225 antibody in discriminating adenocarcinoma from benign mesothelium in body cavity effusions. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred four cases of unequivocally benign (34 cases) and malignant (70 cases) serous effusions with cell block material were immunostained for BCA-225 using the ABC method without antigen retrieval. The percentage of positively staining cells in each case was estimated in a blind fashion. RESULTS: BCA-225 stained at least 10% of morphologically malignant cells in 28 of 32 (88%) breast carcinomas and 58 of 67 (87%) adenocarcinomas overall. Neuroendocrine carcinomas (two cases) and one mesothelioma were positive in < or = 5% of their respective tumor cells. Of 34 benign cases, 6 (18%) exhibited positive staining, albeit in rare, morphologically benign cells. CONCLUSION: BCA-225 is able to discriminate adenocarcinoma from reactive mesothelium in cell block preparations and may prove useful as part of an antibody panel.     

Mesothelioma Symposium 11.30–12.30 Tuesday 16 September 2003. Cytopathology of malignant mesothelioma

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma on the cytology of serous effusions is a two‐phase process. First is to determine that the effusion is malignant based on morphological features such as a highly cellular fluid with many large three dimensional cell aggregates, and/or the recognition of minor malignant criteria including prominent cell engulfment, uniformly present very prominent nucleoli, or the finding of very large (giant) cells. In cell block sections, strong positive staining with EMA often with cell membrane accentuation provides compelling support for a cytological diagnosis of malignancy. Second is to recognize that the malignant cells have a mesothelial phenotype and do not represent metastatic malignancy (usually adenocarcinoma). Criteria in support of mesothelioma include the lack of a ‘two cell’ population, that is one native (mesothelial) and one foreign (metastatic), cells with abundant dense staining cytoplasm, the presence of ‘windows’ where mesothelioma cells lie in close apposition and intracytoplasmic glycogen presenting either as small peripheral vacuoles on MGG stained smears or large yellow refractile crescents on Papanicolaou stained smears. In addition, mesothliomas often possess connective tissue stromal cores occurring as either well‐formed collagen within papillary aggregates or lying free as pink (MGG) or light green (Pap) amorphous material in the background of the smear or in loose association with mesothelioma cells. Finally small orange staining squamous‐like cells can occasionally be identified and sometimes this may be a very prominent finding and has resulted in the false impression of a squamous cell carcinoma. Almost certainly these cells represent apoptotic tumour cells. The connective tissue mucin hyaluronic acid may be found as a net‐like pattern in the smear background or as large hard‐edged magenta‐stained vacuoles on MGG‐stained smears. Cell block sections provide architectural information and it is usually possible to separate mesothelioma aggregates with their cuboidal cells, central nuclei and abundant dense cytoplasm arranged in solid, papillary or hollow clusters from those of adenocarcinoma with less dense, often foamy cytoplasm, often composed of columnar cells with elongated nuclei. Aggregate form in adenocarcinoma can be variable but true acini are a rare finding. These cell block sections provide an ideal medium for histochemistry (PAS with and without diastase digestion) and immunocytochemistry. By using a panel of antibodies (Calretinin and CK 5/6, BerEp4, CEA, B72.3) it is almost always possible to distinguish mesothelioma from metastatic adenocarcinoma. Calretinin and CK 5/6 positive staining and absent staining with BerEp4, CEA and B72.3 is considered diagnostic of mesothelioma.     

Reactivity of six antibodies in effusions of mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and mesotheliosis: stepwise logistic regression analysis

Anti‐CEA, anti‐vimentin, CAM5.2, BerEp4, Leu‐M1 and anti‐EMA were applied to effusions from 36 mesotheliomas, 53 adenocarcinomas and 24 reactive mesothelial proliferations. Stepwise logistic regression analysis selected three criteria of major importance for distinguishing between adenocarcinoma and mesothelioma: BerEp4, CEA and EMA accentuated at the cell membrane (mEMA), these three being of similar diagnostic value. The pattern BerEp4^?, CEA^? and mEMA⁺ was fully predictive for mesothelioma (sensitivity 47%), whereas the opposite pattern was fully predictive for adenocarcinoma (sensitivity 80%). Only EMA seemed to distinguish between mesotheliosis and mesothelioma. Comparison of reactivity in cytological and histological material from the same mesotheliomas showed similar staining frequencies for CEA and CAM5.2, with some random variation for Leu‐M1 and EMA, whereas vimentin and BerEp4 reactivity was more frequent in cytological specimens.     

Identification of Malignant Cells In Serous Effusions Using A Panel of Monoclonal Antibodies Ber-Ep4, Mca-B-12 and Ema

A panel of three monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) was tested on 29 benign and 53 malignant effusions with the aim of investigating its usefulness for the discrimination between benign and malignant lesions. The panel consisted of MoAbs directed against epithelial membrane antigen (EMA); MCA-b-12, reacting with a 350 kD glycoprotein with mucin-like characteristics present on human breast cancer cells and various other normal and neoplastic tissues, and Ber-EP4, directed against a 34 and 39 kD glycopeptide on human epithelial cells but not on mesothelium. Fifty-two (98%) of the malignant effusions reacted with EMA, 49 (92%) with MCA-b-12 and 44 (83%) with Ber-EP4. Fourteen per cent of benign effusions reacted with EMA, 17% with MCA-b-12 and 7% with Ber-EP4. All seven effusions obtained from patients with a malignant mesothelioma reacted with EMA, six of the seven cases staining intensively. None of the seven stained with Ber-EP4. MCA-b-12 did not react with the cells in one case of malignant mesothelioma. The results suggest that the combination of EMA and Ber-EP4 may be used to discriminate between benign and malignant cells and possibly also between adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma. MCA-b-12 followed in general the reaction pattern of EMA, although often with a less intense staining reaction, making this antibody unsuitable for inclusion in the panel.     

Distribution of silver-stained interphase nucleolar organizer regions as a parameter to distinguish neoplastic from nonneoplastic reactive cells in human effusions

The distribution of interphasic nucleolar organizer regions (NORs) was studied in cytologic preparations of human serous effusions in order to differentiate malignant cells from nonmalignant reactive cells. The study was carried out on 80 cases of metastatic adenocarcinoma, 10 cases of mesothelioma, 10 reactive pleural effusions and 5 peritoneal washings. Visualization of NORs at the light microscopic level was obtained using a silver-staining technique for acidic proteins selectively associated with NORs. The morphologic data were also statistically evaluated by means of an automated image analyzer. The quantity of silver-stained NORs was higher in cancer cells (both mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma) than in reactive mesothelial cells. Moreover, NORs were more irregularly distributed within the nucleoli and were more variably sized in cancer cells than in reactive mesothelial cells.     

Applications of monoclonal antibodies in clinical cytology as exemplified by studies with monoclonal antibody B72.3. The George N. Papanicolaou award lecture

The monoclonal antibody (MAb) B72.3, reactive with a high-molecular-weight, glycoprotein, tumor-associated antigen, designated TAG-72, has been previously shown to be reactive with formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections of adenocarcinomas of the ovary, colon and breast, but not a variety of normal adult tissues. It has demonstrated utility as an immunocytochemical adjunct for the diagnosis of carcinoma in cell blocks and cytocentrifuge preparations of human serous effusions, with selective reactivity for tumor cells (particularly adenocarcinoma) over reactive mesothelium. Using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method of immunoperoxidase staining and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell suspensions, MAb B72.3 detected tumor cells in effusions from all of 21 patients with adenocarcinoma of the breast. No reactivity was demonstrated in any cell type in benign effusions from 41 patients. In contrast, MAb B72.3 showed no reactivity to leukemic or lymphomatous effusions, or to mesothelial cells from malignant effusions. MAb B72.3 also detected adenocarcinoma cells in effusion specimens from 12 of 12 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung and 16 of 16 patients with adenocarcinoma of the ovary. MAb B72.3 has recently been used with fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy specimens and the corresponding surgically excised tumors to determine cellular reactivity. Using the ABC immunoperoxidase method, fine needle aspirates and corresponding surgically excised tumors were analyzed for TAG-72 expression. Positive staining with MAb B72.3 was observed in needle aspirates of 27 of 27 adenocarcinomas and adenosquamous carcinomas of the lung, 17 of 21 adenocarcinomas of the breast, 6 of 6 adenocarcinomas of the colon and in carcinomas from other body sites. In contrast, 21 small-cell carcinomas of the lung, 13 malignant melanomas, 2 lymphomas and 2 sarcomas did not stain with the antibody. Benign lesions from the breast, lung, pancreas, parotid and thyroid also showed no staining. In many patients, tumor-bearing tissue had also been resected and was available for comparative examination with MAb B72.3. In more than 90% of these patients, the staining patterns of the tumor cells in the aspirates were found to be predictive of the patterns of antibody reactivity in the comparable surgically resected tumors. From these studies, it is concluded that MAb B72.3 defines a tumor-associated antigen that is expressed in neoplastic cells versus benign cells, that is most selectively expressed in carcinomas and that may be used as a novel adjunct for the diagnosis of neoplasms in effusions and in fine needle aspiration biopsies.