Monoclonal Caveolin 1 Expression in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma and Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: Is it Useful?

Our plain-English summary of Monoclonal Caveolin 1 Expression in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma and Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: Is it Useful?, by Z. Bozdag, E. Tutar, O.F. Dizibuyuk, et al (Pathology Oncology Research, 2020).

The study

• Authors: Z. Bozdag, E. Tutar, O.F. Dizibuyuk, K. Bakir
• Journal: Pathology Oncology Research
• Published: 2020;26(3):1651-1656
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

In this study we aim to demonstrate the value of monoclonal Caveolin 1 expression in distinguishing between malignant pleural mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Total of 129 cases, consisting of 68 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma (51 epitheloid, 12 biphasic, and 5 sarcomatoid type) and 61 cases of pulmonary adenocarcinoma were examined and stained with monoclonal Caveolin-1. Caveolin 1 expression with a membranous and /or cytoplasmic pattern was detected only in 32.35% (n:22/68) of malignant pleural mesothelioma and 6.5% (n:4/61) of pulmonary adenocarcinoma cases. This finding suggests that the choice of poly/monoclonal antibody for Caveolin 1 in the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma is important.

In plain English

This laboratory study, from the Pathology Department of Gaziantep University in Turkey, tested whether staining tumor tissue for a protein called Caveolin-1 helps pathologists tell malignant pleural mesothelioma apart from pulmonary adenocarcinoma, a lung cancer that can look similar. The stain used a monoclonal antibody, one type of laboratory antibody. The authors examined archived surgical specimens from 68 mesothelioma cases (51 epitheloid, 12 biphasic, 5 sarcomatoid) and 61 adenocarcinoma cases. The study did not examine asbestos exposure. Caveolin-1 staining was found in 22 of 68 mesothelioma cases (32.35%) and 4 of 61 adenocarcinoma cases (6.5%). Among the mesotheliomas, 15 of 51 epitheloid, 5 of 12 biphasic and 2 of 5 sarcomatoid cases stained positive. All four positive adenocarcinomas were of the solid type. The authors reported no statistically significant difference between the two groups. They noted that their mesothelioma staining rate was very low compared with other studies, which had used polyclonal antibodies, and suggested that the choice of antibody matters. The authors concluded that monoclonal Caveolin-1 has no significant value in distinguishing the two cancers.

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: laboratory immunohistochemistry study of archived tumor samples
• Who was studied: 129 surgically resected tumors from the archives of Gaziantep University's Pathology Department, Turkey: 68 malignant pleural mesotheliomas (51 epitheloid, 12 biphasic, 5 sarcomatoid) and 61 pulmonary adenocarcinomas of mixed subtypes
• Exposure: No asbestos or other exposure was studied. The test examined was staining with a mouse monoclonal Caveolin-1 antibody (NCL-L-Caveolin-1, Leica, diluted 1 to 200).
• Main results:
  • Caveolin-1 staining was positive in 32.35% (22 of 68) of mesothelioma cases and 6.5% (4 of 61) of pulmonary adenocarcinoma cases
  • By mesothelioma subtype, staining was positive in 15 of 51 epitheloid (29.41%), 5 of 12 biphasic (41.66%) and 2 of 5 sarcomatoid (40.0%) cases
  • All four positive adenocarcinoma cases were of the solid type
  • Among the 22 positive mesotheliomas, 12 stained in 1–10% of tumor cells, 7 in 11–50% and 3 in more than 50%. All 4 positive adenocarcinomas stained in 1–10% of tumor cells.
  • The authors reported no statistically significant difference between the mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma groups
  • The authors described their mesothelioma staining rate as very low compared with other studies, and noted that those earlier studies used polyclonal antibodies
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that monoclonal Caveolin-1 has no significant value in distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma, and suggested that the choice of polyclonal or monoclonal antibody is important

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: Monoclonal, Differential Diagnosis, Pleural Mesothelioma, Adenocarcinoma, Biphasic Mesothelioma, Sarcomatoid, Monoclonal Antibody.

Related studies

• Calretinin but not caveolin-1 correlates with tumour histology and survival in malignant mesothelioma — B. Thapa, M. Walkiewicz, et al. (2016)
• Loss of BAP1 expression is very rare in peritoneal and gynecologic serous adenocarcinomas and can be useful in the differential diagnosis with abdominal mesothelioma — J. Andrici, J. Jung, et al. (2016)
• Tumor/stromal caveolin-1 expression patterns in pleural mesothelioma define a subgroup of the epithelial histotype with poorer prognosis — L. Righi, M.C. Cavallo, et al. (2014)
• Value of Glut-1 and Koc markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma — Ö. Üçer, A.F. Dağli, et al. (2013)
• Monoclonal antibody HBME-1 reacts with a minor subset of B cells with villous surface and can be useful in the diagnosis of hairy cell leukemia and other indolent lymphoproliferations of villous B lymphocytes — L. Krenács, J. Tóth-Lipták, et al. (2013)
• Calretinin, thrombomodulin, CEA, and CD15: a useful combination of immunohistochemical markers for differentiating pleural epithelial mesothelioma from peripheral pulmonary adenocarcinoma — C.E. Comin, L. Novelli, et al. (2001)

Browse more research in Pathology Oncology Research, or return to medical research.