mesowatch
HomeProtein-Staining Test Can’t Distinguish Mesothelioma
divider

Protein-Staining Test Can’t Distinguish Benign From Malignant Mesothelioma

Protein-Staining Test Can’t Distinguish Benign From Malignant Mesothelioma

While there are multiple methods for differentiating between benign and malignant mesothelioma cells, immunostaining the CD146 protein doesn’t appear to be one of them.

That’s the conclusion of a group of Canadian researchers after examining slides of CD146 stained with antibodies. The group’s findings appeared March 15 in the online edition of Virchows Archiv, a European pathology journal.

Prior research has suggested that stained CD146 proteins examined under a microscope can distinguish benign mesothelioma cells from malignant ones, though “there are marked differences in the reported results,” the research team noted.

Slide Study

To more conclusively decide on the technique’s effectiveness, the pathologists studied 123 slides of various types of mesothelioma cells. Thirty-two epithelioid reactive mesothelial hyperplasia samples were studied, along with samples for 43 epithelioid mesotheliomas, 17 spindle cell reactive mesothelial proliferation, and 31 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas.

The team — composed of researchers from Vancouver General Hospital’s pathology department and the University of British Colombia’s pathology department — quickly hit a roadblock, as tests repeatedly yielded an array of false positives and sometimes uninterpretable results.

For example, when comparing epithelioid mesotheliomas to reactive epithelial mesothelial proliferations, the team found that staining produced very specific results — yielding 94 percent accuracy — but with dismal sensitivity — 23 percent — leading to many false-positive results, the study showed. Additionally, the intensity and extent of the staining also fared poorly in the tests.

When comparing sarcomatoid mesotheliomas to reactive spindle cell mesothelial processes, the team concluded that the tests were inadequate both in terms of sensitivity — 33 percent — and sensitivity, which they pegged at 76 percent.

Uninterpretable Results

Strong staining for slides of endothelial cells and fibroblasts fared much worse, with the team declining to even list their measurements, given how difficult they were to interpret.

By way of comparison, BAP1 gene samples were lost in 49 percent of epithelioid cell tests and only 29 percent of sarcomatoid mesothelioma slides, the researchers noted. The body’s MTAP enzyme was lost to only 23 percent of epithelioid tests and 24 percent of sarcomatoid mesothelioma tests. The researchers added that there was “no association between CD146 staining and BAP1 or MTAP retention/loss.”

Based on the overall results, the group concluded that “CD146 staining is probably not useful for separating malignant from benign mesothelial proliferations.”

Amna Anees

Reading Time: 1 mins

Published On: March 16, 2021

Amna Anees - author

Amna is a molecular biologist and has a deep interest in the field of health and medicine. She has worked in the field of proteomics and plants molecular biology. Being a biologist herself, she has developed an interest in the field of therapeutic studies of mesothelioma and related researches.

More to Read

Section Divider

Katie Duquette - December 20, 2024

The Asbestos Lawsuit Process: From Diagnosis to Legal Action

Mini Divider
Mesowatch Logo

Mesowatch serves as an industry watchdog and advocates for patients and families affected by asbestos by providing reliable and up-to-date news stories and information on asbestos and mesothelioma.

NAVIGATE

About UsEditorial GuidelinesNewsSupport and ResourcesPrivacy PolicySitemap

CONTACT US

Email: support@mesowatch.com

Phone: (866) 402-1000

Address: 3260 N Hayden Rd, Suite 210, Scottsdale, AZ 85251

Copyright © 2024 by Mesowatch. All Rights Reserved.
At Mesowatch, we strive to provide helpful information for your journey. Please remember that the content on our website is for informational purposes only and is protected by copyright law. It is not a substitute for professional medical or legal advice. We encourage you to consult qualified professionals for any health or legal concerns. Disclaimer