Comparing the results of pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma between Chinese and Japanese experts.
- Author:
Jianlin LOU
1
;
Zhibin GAO
;
Zhaoqiang JIANG
;
Junqiang CHEN
;
Riping CHEN
;
Xing ZHANG
2
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Antigens, Neoplasm; Biomarkers; Biomarkers, Tumor; Cell Adhesion Molecules; China; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; standards; Epithelial Cell Adhesion Molecule; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Japan; Lung Neoplasms; classification; diagnosis; Mesothelioma; classification; diagnosis; Observer Variation
- From: Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases 2015;33(1):33-36
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo compare the results of pathological diagnosis of 41 patients with malignant mesothelioma between Chinese and Japanese experts, and to provide a basis for the standard for diagnosis of mesothelioma.
METHODSThe medical information and tissue samples of 41 patients with malignant mesothelioma were collected in a hospital in Zhejiang Province from 2003 to 2010. The expression levels of calretinin, Wilms' tumor suppressor gene (WT1), podoplanin (D2-40), cytokeratins (CK5/6, AE1/AE3, and CAM5.2), epithelial membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, BerEP4, MOC31, thyroid transcription factor-1, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor in tumor tissues were measured using immunohistochemical staining by Japanese experts, and the pathological classification and diagnosis were made. The results of diagnosis, pathological classification, immunohistochemical marker selection, and slide review were compared between Chinese and Japanese experts.
RESULTSTwenty-nine (70.7%) cases were diagnosed as mesothelioma by Japanese experts, among whom 12 (41.4%) cases were pleura mesothelioma, and 17 (58.6%) cases were peritoneal mesothelioma. Ten (24.4%) cases were confirmed without mesothelioma, and 2 (4.9%) cases were not confirmed due to insufficient information. Thirty-two (78.0%) cases were diagnosed as mesothelioma by Chinese experts, among whom 8 (25.0%) cases were pleura mesothelioma, and 24 (75.0%) cases were peritoneal mesothelioma. One (2.4%) case was confirmed without mesothelioma, and 8 (19.5%) cases were not confirmed. There were significant differences in the results of diagnosis between Chinese and Japanese experts. However, their pathological classifications of mesothelioma were similar. Significant differences in immunohistochemical marker selection and slide review were also found between Chinese and Japanese experts.
CONCLUSIONThe diagnostic skills of those pathological experts in this hospital remain to be further improved for mesothelioma diagnosis. A panel of immunohistochemical markers including at least 2 mesothelioma-positive and 2 mesothelioma-negative markers are recommended for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.
