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

PubMedID: 12515999Histological 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 antibodies 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, immunohistochemistry 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

Molecular Testing Guideline for Selection of Lung Cancer Patients for EGFR and ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology

Objective: To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Participants: Three cochairs without conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the 3 sponsoring professional societies: College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Writing and advisory panels were constituted from additional experts from these societies. Evidence: Three unbiased literature searches of electronic databases were performed to capture published articles from January 2004 through February 2012, yielding 1533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for their relevance to the recommendations. Evidence was formally graded for each recommendation. Consensus Process: Initial recommendations were formulated by the cochairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least 2 panelists. Drafts were circulated to the writing panel (version 1), advisory panel (version 2), and the public (version 3) before submission (version 4). Conclusions: The 37 guideline items address 14 subjects, including 15 recommendations (evidence grade A/B). The major recommendations are to use testing for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions to guide patient selection for therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, respectively, in all patients with advanced-stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, smoking history, or other clinical risk factors, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards. Already, new treatments targeting genetic alterations in other, less common driver oncogenes are being evaluated in lung cancer, and testing for these may be addressed in future versions of these guidelines