Oncofetal antigens as tumor markers in the cytologic diagnosis of effusions

To test the value of oncofetal antigens in the cytologic diagnosis of effusions, immunoperoxidase staining with antisera to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha fetoprotein (AFP), pregnancy-specific beta 1-glycoprotein (SP1) and placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP) was carried out on pleural and peritoneal fluids from 72 cases. Sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell blocks were used in most cases; cytocentrifuge preparations were used in some. Reactions were negative with all antisera in 23 of 24 nonmalignant effusions as well as in all 7 cases of malignant mesothelioma and 4 cases of malignant lymphoma. In 24 of 36 confirmed carcinomatous effusions, staining was positive with one or more antisera, including anti-CEA positivity in 23 of the 24 cases. In 5 of the 24 cases with positive staining, a confident diagnosis of malignancy had not been made on routine cytologic preparations. Immunoperoxidase staining for CEA appears to be of supportive value in the cytologic diagnosis of malignancy in effusions.     

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.     

Comparison of Monoclonal Antibodies Aua1 and Ber Ep4 With Anti-Cea For Detecting Carcinoma Cells In Serous Effusions and Distinguishing Them From Mesothelial Cells

Commercially available monoclonal antibodies AUA1, BER EP4 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were applied to cell blocks from 95 serous effusions. AUA1 and BER EP4 were reactive with 89% of effusions known to contain carcinoma cells, and anti-CEA with 71%. They also reacted with cells in two effusions from patients with malignant disease which were regarded as negative on conventional cytological examination of Papanicolaou-stained smears. They were negative in all but one of the benign effusions. Using all three antibodies, 95% of effusions containing carcinoma cells were detected. Use of these antibodies could improve the cytological diagnosis of serous effusions.     

The value of the immunoperoxidase slide assay in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions in breast cancer

Whether immunocytochemical studies of malignant pleural effusions due to breast cancer would increase the diagnostic yield as compared with conventional effusion cytology was examined in 30 cases with biopsy-proven metastatic spread to the pleura. Conventional cytology was performed on air-dried smears as well as on cytocentrifuge preparations stained with the May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain. Immunocytochemistry was performed with monoclonal antibodies against carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and the peroxidase-antiperoxidase technique on glass slides after Ficoll-Hypaque centrifugation. By conventional cytology, 13 cases (43%) were positive for malignant cells, 6 cases (20%) were suspicious, and 11 cases (37%) were negative. In marked contrast, all 30 cases were immunocytologically positive for malignancy. Tumor cells in all cases demonstrated a positive reaction for EMA. Some mesothelial cells were also positive for EMA, but their reaction pattern was clearly distinguishable from that of the tumor cells. Twenty-one cases (70%) also showed CEA-positive tumor cells; mesothelial cells never reacted with CEA. Some tumor cells showed a loss of HLA expression. In conclusion, this immunocytologic method can be recommended as a routine procedure for greatly increasing the diagnostic yield of cytology in pleural effusions due to breast cancer.     

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.     

Distinction between carcinoma cells and mesothelial cells in serous effusions. Usefulness of immunohistochemistry

The usefulness of an immunoperoxidase battery to distinguish carcinomatous from benign effusions was examined. Cell block sections from 90 previously diagnosed effusions were stained with antibodies to Leu-M1, B72.3, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and vimentin. The 90 cases comprised 69 carcinomas (23 mammary, 16 ovarian, 10 pulmonary, 7 gastrointestinal [GI] and 13 others), 2 malignant mesotheliomas and 19 cases with reactive mesothelial cells only. EMA and vimentin were the most useful markers for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells. EMA reacted with 86% of the carcinomas while vimentin reacted with 90% of the reactive cases. Leu-M1, B72.3 and CEA, although generally less sensitive than EMA, were also helpful in this regard. Additionally, the use of Leu-M1 and CEA together may help to distinguish pulmonary from GI carcinomas.     

Immunophenotyping of Mesothelial Cells and Carcinoma Cells With Monoclonal Antibodies to Cytokeratins, Vimentin, Cea and Ema Improves the Cytodiagnosis of Serous Effusions

This paper presents an immunocytochemical study performed on cytocentrifuged deposits from 109 peritoneal and pleural effusions including 20 transudates, 43 malignant metastatic effusions and 46 effusions containing atypical cells, unidentifiable as reactive mesothelial or malignant epithelial cells on the classical morphological criteria. A panel of four monoclonal antibodies (MAb) was used, including KL1 directed to cytokeratins (KER), V9 to vimentin (VIM), NEO 723 to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and E29 to epithelial membrane antigen (EMA). In most transudates the reactive mesothelial cells coexpressed VIM and KER with a ring-like pattern for the latter proteins. In contrast, they were unreactive to anti-CEA and weakly and inconsistently reactive to anti-EMA. In malignant effusions, most carcinoma cells coexpressed EMA, CEA and KER with a predominant diffuse cytoplasmic pattern for the latter. Only a few malignant epithelial cells from five metastatic adenocarcinomas weakly expressed VIM. When used on the 46 effusions with unidentifiable cells, the panel of MAb allowed reactive mesothelial cells and malignant epithelial cells to be distinguished from each other in 39 of 46 cases (85%).     

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.     

Immunofluorescent staining of metastatic carcinoma cells in serous fluid with carcinoembryonic antibody, epithelial membrane antibody, AUA-1 and BER-EP4

Using an indirect immunofluorescence technique, we assessed the accuracy and clinical usefulness of a panel of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. the panel consisted of carcinoembryonic antibody (CEA) and epithelial membrane antibody (EMA), AUA-1, and Ber-EP4 conjugated with fluorescein isothiocyanate. Twenty-six specimens from pleural, peritoneal or pericardial effusions known to contain carcinoma cells (adenocarcinoma or large cell anaplastic carcinoma) and 16 specimens without carcinoma were first examined. the sensitivity and specificity for each of the antibodies were as follows: CEA, 71% and 75%; EMA, 96% and 81%; AUA-1, 80% and 100%; and Ber-EP4, 85% and 100%, respectively. the panel of antibodies was then applied to a group of 14 'problematic' fluids. These had been identified as causing dilemmas in interpretation, either because the cells in the fluids were of equivocal appearance on light microscopy, or the cytological diagnosis was different from that expected in the light of the clinical condition of the patient. Insufficient cellular material was present in one specimen. In five (39%) of the cases the immunochemical staining supported the light microscopic diagnosis. In four (30%) cases, however, the results indicated that the original light microscopic report was incorrect. Two of these were examples of large cell carcinoma of the lung, in which false negative reports had been issued on pleural fluids. the other two were cases of benign ovarian tumours in which a false positive report had been issued. the immunostaining also clarified the final diagnosis in the three patients (23%) on whom 'suspicious' cytological reports had previously been issued. the remaining case, fluid from a patient with a high grade mixed Mullerian tumour of the ovary, was unresolved. We conclude that immunofluorescent staining by AUA-1, EMA and Ber-EP4 is an aid in the cytological interpretation of serous fluids. CEA is much less helpful.     

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.     

Characterizing subpopulations of neoplastic cells in serous effusions. The role of immunocytochemistry

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the role of immunochemistry in serous effusions. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed cell blocks of 18 pleural and 18 peritoneal effusions diagnosed as malignant (18), benign (14) and suspicious (4). They were immunostained by the avidin-biotin complex method with a panel of four monoclonal antibodies--CEA, Ber-EP4, LeuM1 (CD15) and p53--and, for lectins (Ulex europaeus) UEA-l, ConA and ConBr. RESULTS: Seventeen of the 18 cases of adenocarcinoma were positive for CEA (95%), 12 (66.6%) for Ber-EP4, 11 (61%) for CD15 and 11 (61%) for p53. Twelve of the 18 (66.6%) were positive for UEA-1, CEA, Ber-EP4 and CD15. UEA-1 did not react with mesothelial cells. p53 Gave a positive reaction in only one case, reactive mesothelial cells. ConA and ConBr reacted indiscriminately with benign and malignant cells; thus, it was not useful in distinguishing between these cells. CONCLUSION: In this context no antibody used alone is reliable for corroborating a diagnosis, but the selective use of a small panel of three markers (CEA, Ber-EP4 and LeuM1) can be very useful in solving diagnostic difficulties in the cytodiagnosis of serous effusions.     

Identification of carcinoma cells in ascitic and pleural fluid. Comparison of four panepithelial antigens with carcinoembryonic antigen.

The cell membrane antigens epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial glycoprotein 34, (egp34), BW-495 and tumor-associated antigen 72 (TAG-72) are present in most benign and malignant epithelial cells and can be demonstrated with the help of monoclonal antibodies. In a study on the identification of carcinoma cells in samples of ascitic and pleural fluid involving 170 patients, we compared the value of immunocytochemical labeling of these antigens with that of immunocytochemical demonstration of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Antibodies to EMA and egp34 occasionally also reacted with reactively proliferating mesothelial cells in benign conditions and thus appear to be inappropriate for diagnostic use. Cells positive for BW-495, TAG-72 and CEA, however, have never been found in benign conditions; the specificity of these antigens thus permits their use in diagnosis. Antigen-expressing cells were found in 85% (BW-495), 62% (TAG-72) and 60% (CEA) of cytologically positive samples from carcinoma patients. Similarly, positive reactions for BW-495, TAG-72 and CEA were observed in, respectively, 36%, 29% and 34% of cytologically negative or suspicious samples. BW-495 thus appears to be a suitable marker for the demonstration of carcinoma cells in samples of pleural and ascitic fluid and to have a higher degree of sensitivity than does either TAG-72 or CEA.     

Desmoplastic small round cell tumour: Cytological and immunocytochemical features

BACKGROUND: Desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT) is a rare and highly aggressive neoplasm. The cytological diagnosis of these tumors can be difficult because they show morphological features quite similar to other small round blue cells tumors. We described four cases of DSRCT with cytological sampling: one obtained by fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) and three from serous effusions. The corresponding immunocytochemical panel was also reviewed. METHODS: Papanicolaou stained samples from FNAB and effusions were morphologically described. Immunoreaction with WT1 antibody was performed in all cytological samples. An immunohistochemical panel including the following antibodies was performed in the corresponding biopsies: 34BE12, AE1/AE3, Chromogranin A, CK20, CK7, CK8, Desmin, EMA, NSE, Vimentin and WT1. RESULTS: The smears showed high cellularity with minor size alteration. Nuclei were round to oval, some of them with inconspicuous nucleoli. Tumor cells are clustered, showing rosette-like feature. Tumor cells in effusions and FNA were positive to WT1 in 3 of 4 cytology specimens (2 out 3 effusions and one FNA). Immunohistochemical reactions for vimentin, NSE, AE1/AE3 and WT1 were positive in all cases in tissue sections. CONCLUSION: The use of an adjunct immunocytochemical panel coupled with the cytomorphological characteristics allows the diagnosis of DSRCT in cytological specimens.     

DNA analysis of malignant effusions. Comparison with cytologic diagnosis and carcinoembryonic antigen content.

Twenty-three consecutive malignant effusions from 19 patients submitted for cytologic examination were analyzed for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) content and for DNA analysis by flow cytometry. The study was undertaken to determine if the addition of DNA analysis would improve the sensitivity of cytologic diagnosis and CEA assay. CEA examination was performed on Papanicolaou-stained smears and hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained cell blocks. Final diagnoses were correlated with histologic examination (four patients), clinical and radiologic studies, and follow-up. The malignant effusions in 19 patients were secondary to carcinoma of the breast (5), lung (5), ovary (1), endometrium (1), mucinous carcinoma of the colon (1), unknown primary (1), extraovarian papillary carcinoma (1), mesothelioma (2) and large cell lymphoma (2). The sensitivity of cytologic diagnosis was 100% and specificity 100%. DNA aneuploidy, defined as the presence of two separate peaks in the histogram, was present in 7 of 23 fluids (sensitivity, 30%). Four fluids had insufficient cells for analysis, and one histogram showed debris (following chemotherapy). DNA aneuploidy was detected in effusions secondary to carcinoma of the breast (4), lung (1) and lymphoma (2). Using 5 ng/mL as the cutoff, the sensitivity of CEA was 68%. DNA analysis of cells in malignant effusions is less sensitive than cytologic diagnosis, and CEA assay and is not recommended for routine use in the diagnosis of malignant 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.     

Usefulness of ploidy, AgNOR and immunocytochemistry for differentiating benign and malignant cells in serous effusions

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the value of different markers in differentiating reactive mesothelial cells from metastatic adenocarcinomatous cells in serous effusions (SE). METHODS: Forty-five SE were processed for morphological examination (Papanicolaou stain), assessment of ploidy, AgNOR counting and immunocytochemical assay of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial membrane antigens (EMA), Ber-EP4 and Leu-M1. Ploidy was established in an image-analyser in smears stained by the Feulgen stain method. AgNOR dots were counted in the smears stained with the silver nitrate assay for non-histone proteins present in the nucleolar organizer region. CEA, EMA, Ber-EP4 and Leu-M1 were evaluated by immunocytochemistry using the streptavidin-biotin complex method. RESULTS: All the smears with positive cytology were aneuploid. Three false negatives by morphological studies were aneuploid, with AgNOR values in two of them corresponding to the neoplastic group. CEA and Leu-M1 showed a low specificity; EMA and Ber-EP4 showed moderate sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of ploidy and the study of AgNOR were better methods than immunocytochemistry for distinguishing between reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinomatous cells in serous fluid.     

Specific tumor markers in diagnostic cytology. Immunoperoxidase studies of carcinoembryonic antigen, lysozyme and other tissue antigens in effusions, washes and aspirates

The immunoperoxidase technique was used to identify specific tumor markers in exfoliated cells in fine needle aspirates and body fluids. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and lysozyme staining was evaluated in cytocentrifuge preparations from 42 malignant effusions and aspirates and 16 benign effusions. Reactive mesothelial cells were negative for CEA and lysozyme or showed faint peripheral cytoplasmic staining. Malignant cells from 50% of the adenocarcinomas studied were positive for CEA. All tumors studied were negative for lysozyme. These staining patterns are helpful in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells, a frequent diagnostic dilemma. Moreover, demonstration of specific tumor antigens (e.g., prostatic acid phosphatase, calcitonin and immunoglobulin) helped define the origin of metastatic malignancy in selected cases. Estrogen receptor activity was also identified in tumor cells using this technique. Immunoperoxidase was helpful in the evaluation of malignant cytologic specimens from patients with more than one tumor. Interpretation of staining patterns is discussed, with reference to the limitations of the technique. Immunoperoxidase methods maintain cytologic detail, are readily adaptable to diagnostic cytology and increase the specificity of cytologic diagnosis.     

Immunohistochemical study of lysozyme, alpha 1-anti-chymotrypsin, tissue polypeptide antigen, keratin and carcinoembryonic antigen in effusion sediments

The cellular sediments of 42 malignant and 16 benign effusions (58 cases) were studied using the immunoperoxidase technique. Serial sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded residual sediments of effusions, sent for routine cytologic examination, were studied by commercially available polyclonal antisera against lysozyme, alpha 1-anti-trypsin, alpha 1-anti-chymotrypsin, tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA), a wide-spectrum anti-keratin, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and, in single cases, thyroglobulin and prostate-specific antigen. A final definite diagnosis from histologic study of biopsy or autopsy specimens was known in all cases. All carcinomas, the mesotheliomas and the reactive mesothelial cells showed a positive reaction for TPA and, partly, the wide-spectrum keratin. Lysozyme could be demonstrated in the cells of the one proven malignant fibrous histiocytoma; all malignant epithelial cells were negative. Alpha 1-anti-chymotrypsin and alpha 1-anti-trypsin showed similar reactions: they were often positive in carcinoma cells of the breast, the bronchial system and the pancreas, in contrast to a mostly negative reaction in carcinomas of the stomach and ovary. CEA showed considerable differences; it was always negative in benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations but mostly positive in carcinomas of the stomach, pancreas and bronchial system. It was only positive in less than 20% of the carcinomas of the breast and always negative in the proven malignant effusions of primary carcinomas of the ovary and prostate. Studying a combination of several tumor markers is possible in serial paraffin-embedded sections and may be a valuable criterion in the cytologic diagnosis of effusions.     

Cytopathological spectrum of unusual malignant pleural effusions at a tertiary care centre in north India

BACKGROUND: Cytological examination of pleural fluid is one of the most informative laboratory procedures in the diagnosis of pleural effusions. Although tuberculosis is the commonest cause of pleural effusions in developing countries, tumours, including grade ones, can present with effusions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the uncommon causes of malignant pleural effusion. METHODS: A 2-year retrospective analysis of pleural fluid cytological specimens submitted to the Department of Cytopathology, PGIMER, Chandigarh between January 2003 and December 2004 was performed to retrieve unusual metastases. Out of a total of 898 samples reviewed, 710 were negative for malignancy and 24 cases were suspicious for malignancy. The remaining 164 cases were positive for malignancy, out of which 38 cases revealed malignancies other than adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: The 38 unusual malignancies metastasizing to the pleural cavity included 29 haematological malignancies (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute lymphoid leukaemia, multiple myeloma and chronic myeloid leukaemia) and nine non-haematological malignancies (Ewing's sarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms' tumour, squamous cell carcinoma, small-cell carcinoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma). CONCLUSION: Although metastatic adenocarcinoma was the commonest aetiology of malignant pleural effusions, a significant number of unusual causes of malignant pleural effusion were also encountered.     

Evaluation of histochemical methods for the detection of intracytoplasmic mucin in serous effusions

We have studied 25 serous effusions containing definitive morphologic evidence of adenocarcinoma to evaluate the ability of two mucin stains (Mayer's mucicarmine, D-PAS) to detect intracytoplasmic mucin in both cytologic (cytospin) and corresponding histological (cell block) preparations. Mucicarmine stain was positive in six of 25 (24%) cytospins and 13 of 25 (52%) cell blocks. D-PAS was positive in 19 of 25 (76%) cytospins and 20 of 25 (80%) cell blocks. Eight cases were identified which showed mucicarmine positivity in the cell block but not the corresponding cytospin; prolonging incubation time resulted in a positive mucicarmine in cytospin preparations for seven of these cases. We conclude that: (i) D-PAS is a more sensitive stain for the detection of intracytoplasmic mucin in all preparations; (ii) mucicarmine shows preferential staining for cell blocks; (iii) alterations in the staining protocol may permit mucin detection by mucicarmine staining in cytologic preparations in a significant number of cases.