h-caldesmon, calretinin, estrogen receptor, and Ber-EP4: a useful combination of immunohistochemical markers for differentiating epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma from serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary.

Department of Human Pathology and Oncology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
American Journal of Surgical Pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 09/2007; 31(8):1139-48. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318033e7a8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Distinguishing between epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma and papillary serous carcinomas involving the peritoneum may be very difficult, owing to overlapping morphologic features. Immunohistochemistry may facilitate establishing a correct diagnosis, but, as no single antibody has demonstrated absolute sensitivity and specificity for either mesothelioma or serous carcinoma, the differential diagnosis is based mainly on the combined use of several markers. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the sensitivity and specificity of a series of mesothelial markers [including more recently investigated antigens such as h-caldesmon (h-CD) and D2-40] and, using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, to identify a selected appropriate panel of antibodies for differentiating between epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma and serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary. Fifteen cases of epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma and 40 cases of papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary (25 primary and 15 metastatic to the peritoneum) were immunostained for h-CD, D2-40, calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER and PR), Ber-EP4, B72.3, CA19-9, and CD15. h-CD and calretinin showed the highest sensitivity (100%), followed by D2-40 (93.3%) and cytokeratin 5/6 (93.3%); thrombomodulin had the lowest sensitivity (60%). h-CD and thrombomodulin had the best specificity (95%) for mesothelioma, followed by calretinin (87.5%), D2-40 (80%), and cytokeratin 5/6 (72.5%). Among carcinoma markers, ER and Ber-EP4 demonstrated the highest sensitivity (95%) followed by B72.3 (72.5%), PR (65%), CA19.9 (60%), and CD15 (45%). The specificity of the nonmesothelial markers was 100%, except for Ber-EP4 (93.3%). The relationship between the values of sensitivity and specificity of each marker using receiver operating characteristic analysis permitted the identification of h-CD, calretinin, ER, and Ber-EP4 as the markers with the best performance in differentiating epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma from serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary.

  • Source
    Journal of Clinical Pathology 01/1971; · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: First Page of the Article
    Ground Penetrating Radar, 2004. GPR 2004. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on; 02/2004
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A previously undescribed case of acquired cutaneous lymphangiectasias on the abdomen in a patient with cirrhotic ascites where peritoneal mesothelial cells refluxed in the skin is discussed. A 56-year-old man previously submitted to liver transplantation presented with vesiculobullous lesions on the developed as his cirrhotic ascites progressed. Histology showed dilated lymphatic channels in the upper dermis lined by a single, discontinuous layer of flattened, monomorphous endothelial cells with endoluminal papillary projections. In the deep reticular dermis, we observed irregular thin- often jagged-walled vascular channels lined by a single layer of bland endothelial cells, dissecting the collagen bundles. Vessels in the lumen were medium to large bizarre-shaped polygonal cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and hyperchromatic and irregular nuclei, arranged in small clusters or as solitary units, focally in close contact with the endothelial lining or free floating within vessel cavities. Immunohistochemistry indicated atypical intraluminal cells to be positive for calretinin, a specific marker for mesothelial cells. Pathophysiologic mechanisms and problems of differential diagnosis of this unique clinicopathologic entity are discussed.
    The American Journal of dermatopathology 05/2008; 30(2):140-4. DOI:10.1097/DAD.0b013e31816373ad · 1.43 Impact Factor