Value of Glut-1 and Koc markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma

Our plain-English summary of Value of Glut-1 and Koc markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma, by Ö. Üçer, A.F. Dağli, A. Kiliçarslan, et al (Türk Patoloji Dergisi, 2013).

The study

• Authors: Ö. Üçer, A.F. Dağli, A. Kiliçarslan, G. Artaş
• Journal: Türk Patoloji Dergisi
• Published: 2013;29(2):94-100
• Cited by: 8 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Objective: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a primary malignant tumor developing from mesothelial cells lining the serosal surfaces and particularly the pleura, and has a very poor prognosis. It may display a variety of histological patterns and has a wide spectrum of cytomorphological characteristics, causing problems in its differential diagnosis from lung adenocarcinomas and sometimes from benign mesothelial proliferations. Immunohistochemical examination is the most useful method for this distinction. In our study, we aimed to determine the value of glucose transporter isoform-1 (GLUT-1) and K homology domain-containing protein (KOC) markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma.

Material And Method: Our study included 30 samples of malignant mesothelioma, 30 samples of pulmonary adenocarcinoma and 30 samples of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia selected from the archives of the Fırat University Hospital's Pathology Department Laboratory. The samples were applied GLUT-1 and KOC markers by immunohistochemistry and the place of these markers in the differential diagnosis was examined.

Results: GLUT-1 was found positive in 80% of malignant mesothelioma cases, 83.3% of adenocarcinoma cases and 6.6% of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases. KOC was positive in 83.3% of malignant mesothelioma cases, 76.6% of adenocarcinoma cases and 46.6% of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases. There was no statistically significant difference between malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma cases in terms of the diffuseness and intensity of staining with GLUT-1, whereas a significant difference was established when these groups were compared with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases. However, the KOC staining diffuseness and intensity results were similar to those obtained with GLUT-1.

Conclusion: In conclusion, GLUT-1 and KOC markers do not differentiate malignant mesotheliomas from pulmonary adenocarcinomas but can be useful in differentiating reactive mesothelial hyperplasia from malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma.

In plain English

This laboratory study from Turkey tested whether two tissue stains, GLUT-1 and KOC (also called IMP3), help pathologists tell apart three conditions that can look alike under the microscope. These were malignant mesothelioma (including epithelioid, sarcomatoid and biphasic types), lung adenocarcinoma (a type of lung cancer), and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, a non-cancerous overgrowth of lining cells. The authors re-examined archived samples from 90 patients at Fırat University Hospital, 30 with each diagnosis, sent between 1992 and 2011. GLUT-1 stained 24 of 30 mesotheliomas (80%), 25 of 30 adenocarcinomas (83.3%) and 2 of 30 hyperplasia samples (6.6%). KOC stained 25 of 30 mesotheliomas (83.3%), 23 of 30 adenocarcinomas (76.6%) and 14 of 30 hyperplasia samples (46.6%). For neither stain did the extent or intensity of staining differ significantly between mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Both cancers differed significantly from hyperplasia. The authors concluded that the two markers do not separate mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma but can be useful in separating reactive hyperplasia from both cancers. The article does not report the patients' asbestos exposure.

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 study of archived tissue samples, re-stained by immunohistochemistry
• Who was studied: Samples from 90 patients sent to the Fırat University Hospital pathology laboratory (Turkey) between 1992 and 2011: 30 pulmonary adenocarcinoma, 30 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, 30 malignant mesothelioma (epithelioid, sarcomatoid and biphasic types)
• Main results:
  • GLUT-1 staining was positive in 24 (80%) of 30 malignant mesothelioma cases, 25 (83.3%) of 30 pulmonary adenocarcinoma cases and 2 (6.6%) of 30 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases
  • GLUT-1 sensitivity was 80% and specificity 93.3% in malignant mesothelioma, and 83.3% and 93.3% in pulmonary adenocarcinoma
  • KOC staining was positive in 25 (83.3%) of 30 malignant mesothelioma cases, 23 (76.6%) of 30 lung adenocarcinoma cases and 14 (46.6%) of 30 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases
  • KOC sensitivity was 83.3% and specificity 53.3% in malignant mesothelioma, and 76.6% and 53.3% in pulmonary adenocarcinoma
  • No statistically significant difference between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma in GLUT-1 or KOC staining extent and intensity (p greater than 0.05)
  • Statistically significant difference (p less than 0.05) when malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma cases were each compared with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases
  • Moderate or severe KOC staining was found in 14 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases (46.6%) that were accompanied by intense inflammation
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that GLUT-1 and KOC do not differentiate malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma but can be useful in differentiating reactive mesothelial hyperplasia from malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma.

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: Differential Diagnosis, Reactive Mesothelial Hyperplasia, Mesothelioma, Adenocarcinoma, Mesothelial Cells, Serosal Surface, Pleura, Prognosis.

Related studies

• Comparative immunohistochemical analysis of IMP3, GLUT1, EMA, CD146, and desmin for distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial cells — H. Minato, N. Kurose, et al. (2014)
• Diagnostic usefulness of EMA, IMP3, and GLUT-1 for the immunocytochemical distinction of malignant cells from reactive mesothelial cells in effusion cytology using cytospin preparations — K. Ikeda, G. Tate, et al. (2011)
• How useful is GLUT-1 in differentiating mesothelial hyperplasia and fibrosing pleuritis from epithelioid and sarcomatoid mesotheliomas? An international collaborative study — A.N. Husain, M.K. Mirza, et al. (2014)
• IMP3 and GLUT-1 immunohistochemistry for distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations — A.F. Lee, A.M. Gown, et al. (2013)
• Use of Anti-Noxa Antibody for Differential Diagnosis between Epithelioid Mesothelioma and Reactive Mesothelial Hyperplasia — K. Kushitani, V.J. Amatya, et al. (2016)
• Differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial cells and malignant mesothelioma cells using the cell proliferation markers minichromosome maintenance protein 7, geminin, topoisomerase II alpha and Ki-67 — F. Kimura, I. Okayasu, et al. (2013)

Browse more research in Türk Patoloji Dergisi, or return to medical research.