Distinction between pleural mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma using MOC31 in an asbestos sprayer

Our plain-English summary of Distinction between pleural mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma using MOC31 in an asbestos sprayer, by P.J. Ryan, J.L. Oates, J. Crocker, et al (Respiratory Medicine, 1997).

The study

• Authors: P.J. Ryan, J.L. Oates, J. Crocker, D.E. Stableforth
• Journal: Respiratory Medicine
• Published: 1997;91(1):57-60
• Type of article: Case report
• Cited by: 6 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Asbestos exposure may cause asbestosis, pleural plaques and benign pleural disease, and may pre-dispose to malignant mesothelioma and other neoplasms. The occurrence to two primary tumours in the same patient is rare, and the appearance of a pleural mesothelioma and another lung tumour is exceptional. The present case report describes a patient who, by standard immunohistochemistry, was thought to have mesothelioma at pleuro-pneumonectomy, and adenocarcinoma in the other lung at post-mortem 5 months later. Subsequent investigation using the MOC31 antibody demonstrated a single pathology of adenocarcinoma of the lung. The additional use of this antibody has important histopathological and legal implications.

In plain English

This case report described one 59-year-old man who had worked as a coach-builder for 30 years. For the first 10 of those years, he sprayed asbestos fibre onto the inside of coach-work as a fire retardant. The article did not name the fiber type. A pleural biopsy was consistent with malignant mesothelioma, and the patient had palliative surgery to remove the left lung and pleura. The patient died 5 months after the operation. The post-mortem found pleural plaques on both sides and an adenocarcinoma in the right lung. Standard staining had classed the left-side tumour as mesothelioma and the right-lung tumour as adenocarcinoma, which pointed to two separate cancers. Later, all specimens were re-tested with the MOC31 antibody, and all were positive. The final diagnosis for both was adenocarcinoma. The widow's compensation claim, which was based on mesothelioma, was then discontinued. The authors said the possibility of an error in the MOC31 staining should be considered. They concluded that MOC31 appears to be a valuable addition to the antibodies used to distinguish some cases of mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: case report (a single patient)
• Who was studied: One 59-year-old man with breathlessness, cough and weight loss, who had smoked 20 cigarettes a day until 12 years earlier; the authors were at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, U.K.; dates of care not given
• Exposure: Coach-builder for 30 years; for the first 10 years he sprayed asbestos fibre onto the inside of coach-work as a fire retardant; fiber type not stated
• Main results:
  • The initial pleural biopsy was consistent with malignant mesothelioma, and the patient underwent palliative left pleuro-pneumonectomy
  • The patient died 5 months after surgery; at post-mortem there were bilateral pleural plaques and an adenocarcinoma in the remaining right lung, with splenic metastases
  • On standard staining the left lung (surgical) specimen was negative for CEA, B72.3, Leu M1 and EMA, and was originally diagnosed as mesothelioma; the right-lung post-mortem tumour was positive for these markers and diagnosed as adenocarcinoma
  • When all specimens were re-examined with the MOC31 antibody, all were positive; the staining was repeated with the same result, and the final diagnosis for both lungs was adenocarcinoma
  • The widow's compensation claim, brought on the basis of mesothelioma, was discontinued when adenocarcinoma was found to be the sole cause of both tumours
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that MOC31 appears to be a valuable addition to the panel of antibodies needed to distinguish some cases of mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma, and that in this case it played a pivotal role in reaching a diagnosis
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that the possibility that the MOC31 staining was erroneous should be considered. They noted that both the pleural biopsy and the surgical specimen were positive, and that a single disease was clinically more plausible

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Pleural Mesothelioma, Adenocarcinoma, Asbestos Exposure, Pleural Plaques, Malignant Mesothelioma, Neoplasm, Immunohistochemistry, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Immunohistochemical distinction of malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma with anti-surfactant apoprotein, anti-Lewisa, and anti-Tn antibodies — M. Noguchi, T. Nakajima, et al. (1989)
• Immunohistochemistry in the distinction between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma: a critical evaluation of new antibodies — A.S. Abutaily, B.J. Addis, et al. (2002)
• Distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma: an immuno-histochemical approach using a panel of monoclonal antibodies — S.E. Tuttle, J.G. Lucas, et al. (1990)
• The diagnostic utility of maspin in the distinction between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma — E.U. Akyildiz, B. Oz, et al. (2010)
• Value of the Ber-EP4 antibody in differentiating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma. The M.D. Anderson experience and a critical review of the literature — N.G. Ordóñez (1998)
• Value of the MOC-31 monoclonal antibody in differentiating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma — N.G. Ordóñez (1998)

Browse more research in Respiratory Medicine, or return to medical research.