Do Markers Provide Higher Diagnostic Accuracy for Mesothelioma

Another interesting study is called, "Changes in surfactant in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid after hemithorax irradiation in patients with Mesothelioma" by Hallman, M.  Maasilta, P. ; Kivisaari, L. ; Mattson, K. (Univ. of Helsinki (Finland)) - Journal Name: American Review of Respiratory Disease (New York); (USA); Journal Volume: 141.  Here is an excerpt: "Experimental studies have shown that the surfactant system of the lung is affected shortly after irradiation. It is unclear, however, whether surfactant plays a role in the pathogenesis of radiation pneumonitis. In the present study surfactant components (saturated phosphatidylcholine, surfactant protein A, phosphatidylglycerol, and phosphatidylinositol) and other phospholipids of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) were studied in four patients with pleural mesothelioma before and during hemithorax irradiation (70 Gy) as well as zero, 1, 2, 3, and 4 months following irradiation. The concentrations of these same components and of soluble proteins were also estimated in the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) using urea as a marker of dilution. After radiotherapy, the concentrations of the surfactant components in ELF decreased to 12 to 55% of the control values before radiation, whereas the concentration of sphingomyelin in ELF increased ninefold. There were small changes in the other phospholipids. The concentration of soluble protein in ELF increased sevenfold. The minimum surface activity of crude BAL increased from 12 +/- 4 to 32 +/- 6 mN/m, and that of the sediment fraction of BAL increased from 7 +/- 4 to 22 +/- 6 mN/m, p less than 0.001. The protein-rich supernatant fraction of BAL from irradiated lung had a inhibitory effect on normal surfactant. There were significant correlations between the increasing severity of the radiologic changes on the one hand and, on the other, the saturated phosphatidylcholine/sphingomyelin ratio (p less than 0.001), the concentrations of soluble protein (p less than 0.001), and the concentrations of the surfactant components (p less than 0.02-0.001) in ELF."

Another interesting study is called, "Primary malignant pericardial mesothelioma: a case report and review." By Kaul TK, Fields BL, Kahn DR. - J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1994 Jun;35(3):261-7.  Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - Primary malignant pericardial mesothelioma is a rare tumor of unknown etiology. The prognosis is extremely poor due to generally late presentation, inability to completely eradicate it surgically and its poor response to radiotherapy or chemotherapy. An unusual case of pericardial mesothelioma which presented as constrictive pericarditis is described. A comprehensive review of the 140 cases reported in the literature so far is presented to assist the readers in the management and prognosis of this rare, pathological tumor."

Another interesting study is called, "Application of Immunohistochemistry to the Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma" by Alberto M. Marchevsky (2008) Application of Immunohistochemistry to the Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine: March 2008, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp. 397-401.  Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - Context.  The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) is rendered with the aid of immunohistochemistry to demonstrate the presence of "mesothelial," "epithelial," or "sarcomatous" differentiation. Antibody panels that have been proposed for the distinction between MM and other neoplasms usually include 2 or more epithelial markers used to exclude the diagnosis of a carcinoma, such as monoclonal and polyclonal carcinoembryonic antigen, Ber-EP4, B72.3, CD15, MOC-31, thyroid transcription factor 1, BG8, and others, and 2 or more mesothelial markers used to confirm the diagnosis of MM, such as cytokeratin 5/6, calretinin, HBME-1, thrombomodulin, WT-1, mesothelin, D2-40, and podoplanin. In general, most antibody panels provide excellent sensitivity and specificity for the differential diagnosis between MM epithelial variant and adenocarcinoma, particularly of lung origin. However, the accuracy of these markers is lower for the diagnosis of sarcomatous MM and for the differential diagnosis between MM and squamous cell carcinoma and carcinomas of renal, ovarian, and other origin.  Objective.—To identify optimal antibody panels for the diagnosis of MM.  Data Sources.—Literature review to determine how many and which mesothelial and epithelial markers need to be included in differential diagnosis antibody panels.  Conclusions.—Various antibody panels have been recommended for the diagnosis of MM, with no overall consensus about how many and which markers should be used. A recent study with Bayesian statistics has demonstrated that the use of many markers does not provide higher diagnostic accuracy than the use of selected single antibodies or various combinations of only 2 markers. There is a need for the development of evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the diagnosis of MM in different differential diagnosis situations."

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers.  If you found any of these excerpts interesting, please read the studies in their entirety.