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.     

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.     

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%).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Immunocytochemical Staining of Serous Effusions: an Additional Method In the Routine Cytology Practice?

In a consecutive and prospective cytomorphologic and immunocytochemical study we have examined 100 serous fluids with a panel of antibodies. Three different immunocytochemical patterns of staining were recognized: (i) a benign profile showing no Ber-EP4 or CEA-positive cells; (ii) a malignant profile with Ber-EP4 and strongly EMA-positive epithelial cells; and (iii) a malignant profile in which mesothelial cells were strongly positive for EMA. By applying these profiles the number of malignant cases recognized increased from 19 to 38. All cytomorphologic malignant fluids showed a malignant profile, but in two cases a malignant epithelial profile was found in patients without otherwise proven malignant disease (false positive staining). Immunocytochemistry with anti-Ber-EP4 and anti-EMA can be recommended as a routine procedure, but the marker result should always be correlated with cytomorphology, eventual histologic data and clinical records. Dans cette étude cytomorphologique prospective, nous avons analysé 100 liquides d'épanchement des séreuses, consécutifs, à l'aide d'une batterie d'anticorps. Trois profils immunocytochimiques différents ont été individualisés: (i) un profil bénin dans lequel aucune cellule n'est positive avec Ber-EP4 ou l'ACE, (ii) un profil malin avec des cellules épithéliales fortement positives aves Ber-EP4 et avec l'EMA et (iii) un profil malin dans lequel les cellules mésothéliales sont fortement positives avec l'EMA. En appliquant ces notions de profils, le nombre de cas malins reconnus passe de 19 à 38. Tous les cas cytologiquement malins avaient un profil malin, mais 2 cas de profil immunocytochimique épithélial malin correspondaient à des patients chez lesquels aucune pathologie maligne n'a été trouvée (faux positif). L'immunocytochimie avec l'anti Ber-EP4 et l'anti EMA doit être recommandée en pratique de routine, mais les résultats de ces immunomarquages doivent toujours être corrélés avec l'étude morphologique et les éventuelles données histologiques et cliniques. In einer prospektiven cytomorphologischen und immuncytochemischen Studie wurden 100 seröse Ergüsse mit einer Gruppe von Antikörpern überprüft. Es fanden sich 3 unterschiedliche Reaktionsmuster: (i) eine gutartige Gruppe ohne positive Reaktion auf Ber-EP4 oder CEA, (ii) eine maligne Gruppe mit Ber-EP4 positiven und stark positiven EMA-Zellen und (iii) eine maligne Gruppe mit stark positiven mesothelialen Zellen auf EMA. Unter Anwendung dieser Einteilung konnte die Zahl der diagnostizierten malignen Fälle von 19 auf 38 vergrößert werden. Alle cytologisch malignen Fälle entsprachen den malignen Gruppen, während 2 Patienten mit immuncytochemisch positiven Befund keinerlei Malignitätszeichen aufwiesen. Der immuncytochemische Einsatz von Anti Ber-EP4 und Anti EMA kann als Routineverfahren empfohlen werden, wobei jedoch immer eine Korrelation mit der Cytomorphologie oder histologischen und klinischen Daten berücksichtigt werden sollte.     

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.     

Immunocytochemistry and DNA-image cytometry in diagnostic effusion cytology. II. Diagnostic accuracy in equivocal smears.

To determine sensitivity and specificity of different antibodies for the immunocytochemical detection of malignant cells in diagnostically equivocal effusions in comparison with those achieved by DNA-image cytometry. 65 cytologically doubtful effusions of the serous cavities were stained with twelve antibodies. Furthermore, DNA-image cytometry was performed. Data were correlated with patient follow-up. Sensitivity of cellular staining of Ber-EP4 for the identification of malignant cells was 77.8%, specificity of absent staining for benign cells was 100%. Positive predictive value for the identification of malignant cells was 100%, negative value 65.5%. Sensitivity of DNA-aneuploidy for the identification of malignancy was 82.9%, specificity of DNA-non-aneuploidy for benignity 94.7%. The positive predictive value of DNA-aneuploidy for the occurrence of malignant cells was 96.7%. Negative predictive value of DNA-non-aneuploidy was 72.0%. Combining immunocytochemistry applying Ber-EP4 only and DNA-cytometry in equivocal effusions resulted in a sensitivity of 88.9% for the identification of malignant cells associated with a 95.0% specificity. Positive predictive value was 97.7%, the negative one 79.2%.     

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ber-EP4 for Metastatic Adenocarcinoma in Serous Effusions: A Meta-Analysis

Numerous studies have investigated the utility of Ber-EP4 in differentiating metastatic adenocarcinoma (MAC) from malignant epithelial mesothelioma (MM) and/or reactive mesothelial cells (RM) in serous effusions. However, the results remain controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the overall accuracy of Ber-EP4 in serous effusions for MAC through a meta-analysis of published studies. Publications addressing the accuracy of Ber-EP4 in the diagnosis of MAC were selected from the Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Data from selected studies were pooled to yield summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Statistical analysis was performed by Meta-Disc 1.4 and STATA 12.0 softwares. 29 studies, based on 2646 patients, met the inclusion criteria and the summary estimating for Ber-EP4 in the diagnosis of MAC were: sensitivity 0.8 (95% CI: 0.78–0.82), specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93–0.96), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 12.72 (95% CI: 8.66–18.7), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.18 (95% CI: 0.12–0.26) and diagnostic odds ratio 95.05 (95% CI: 57.26–157.77). The SROC curve indicated that the maximum joint sensitivity and specificity (Q-value) was 0.91; the area under the curve was 0.96. Our findings suggest that BER-EP4 may be a useful diagnostic adjunctive tool for confirming MAC in serous effusions.     

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.     

Significance of immunocytochemical expression of E-cadherin, N-cadherin and CD44 in serous effusions using liquid-based cytology

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic utility of E-cadherin (E-cad), N-cadherin (N-cad) and CD44 to discriminate adenocarcinoma cells from benign and malignant mesothelial cells in body cavity fluids and to clarify the origin of cancer cells. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 120 ThinPrep (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) cytologic specimens of serous effusions, which included 22 cases of reactive mesothelium, 6 cases of malignant mesothelioma and 92 cases of metastatic adenocarcinoma from various sites, were immunostained for E-cad, N-cad and CD44. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 92 metastatic adenocarcinomas (90.21%) expressed E-cad, while 1 of 6 malignant mesotheliomas and 1 of 22 cases of reactive mesothelium were positive for E-cad. All 6 cases of mesothelioma expressed N-cad, whereas most cases of metastatic adenocarcinomas were negative. CD44 immunoreactivity was seen in 18 of 22 (81.81%) benign effusions and in 21 of 92 (22.82%) metastatic adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSION: The combination of E-cad, N-cad and CD44 appears to be a useful panel for distinguishing metastatic adenocarcinoma, mesothelioma and reactive mesothelium and also for clarifying the exact histogenetic origin of cancer cells. This is of great importance in a few otherwise-insoluble cases because of differences in tumor treatment and prognosis.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

MN/CA9: a potential gene marker for detection of malignant cells in effusions.

Many cancers cause malignant effusions. The presence of malignant cells in effusions has implications in diagnosis, tumour staging and prognosis. The detection of malignant cells currently presents a challenge for cytopathologists. New adjunctive methods are needed. Although the effusions provide excellent materials for molecular assay, the available molecular markers are extremely limited, which hinders its clinical application. MN/CA9 has proved to be a valuable marker in many cancers such as lung, breast, colon, kidney, etc. The present study was to evaluate MN/CA9 as a new molecular marker for the detection of cancer cells in pleural effusions. Seventy-one pleural effusions including 59 malignant effusions from patients with cancer, and 12 patients with benign diseases as a control, were subjected to RT-PCR for detection of MN/CA9 gene expression. MN/CA9 gene expression was detected in 53/59 (89.8%) pleural effusions from cancer patients (15/16 for breast cancers, 10/11 for lung cancers, 4/4 for ovary cancers, 2/3 for colon-rectal cancers, 5/6 for cancers of unknown site, 7/8 for mesothelioma and 10/11 for other cancers). Furthermore, MN/CA9 was positive in 13/18 (72.2%) of cytologically negative effusions of cancer patients. MN/CA9 was detected in only 1/12 (8.3%) effusions from the control patients (p < 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of MN/CA9 gene expression were, respectively, 89.8% and 91.7%. Our preliminary results suggest that MN/CA9 could be a potential marker for the detection of malignant cells in effusions. A large-scale study is needed to confirm these results.     

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.     

MN/CA9: a potential gene marker for detection of malignant cells in effusions

Many cancers cause malignant effusions. The presence of malignant cells in effusions has implications in diagnosis, tumour staging and prognosis. The detection of malignant cells currently presents a challenge for cytopathologists. New adjunctive methods are needed. Although the effusions provide excellent materials for molecular assay, the available molecular markers are extremely limited, which hinders its clinical application. MN/CA9 has proved to be a valuable marker in many cancers such as lung, breast, colon, kidney, etc. The present study was to evaluate MN/CA9 as a new molecular marker for the detection of cancer cells in pleural effusions. Seventy-one pleural effusions including 59 malignant effusions from patients with cancer, and 12 patients with benign diseases as a control, were subjected to RT-PCR for detection of MN/CA9 gene expression. MN/CA9 gene expression was detected in 53/59 (89.8%) pleural effusions from cancer patients (15/16 for breast cancers, 10/11 for lung cancers, 4/4 for ovary cancers, 2/3 for colon–rectal cancers, 5/6 for cancers of unknown site, 7/8 for mesothelioma and 10/11 for other cancers). Furthermore, MN/CA9 was positive in 13/18 (72.2%) of cytologically negative effusions of cancer patients. MN/CA9 was detected in only 1/12 (8.3%) effusions from the control patients (p<0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of MN/CA9 gene expression were, respectively, 89.8% and 91.7%. Our preliminary results suggest that MN/CA9 could be a potential marker for the detection of malignant cells in effusions. A large-scale study is needed to confirm these results.     

Utility of HBME-1 immunostaining in serous effusions

Utility of HBME-1 immunostaining in serous effusions
HBME-1 is an anti-mesothelial cell monoclonal antibody derived from human mesothelioma cells. We investigated 227 body cavity effusions to test its utility in differentiating mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma. HBME-1 outlined cell membranes in non-neoplastic mesothelial cells. Thick surface staining was observed on all mesotheliomas. HBME-1 reactivity was also detected in 24% of metastatic carcinomatous effusions. Most ovarian carcinomas (83%) reacted with this antibody, showing surface staining. Cytoplasmic HBME-1 immunoreactivity was observed in a small proportion of non-ovarian adenocarcinomas (14%). Despite its limited specificity, HBME-1 might be added to the battery of other markers of epithelial and/or mesothelial differentiation to be used in cases of suspected mesothelioma. Evaluation of suspicious cells should include careful study of the pattern of immunostaining.